[Talk-us] Trail Route Relationships

[Val Kartchner]

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:07 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 05/07/2010 03:04 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
> > Which levels should be assigned as the "name" for each trail segment?
> > The rest will be used in the "name" for the route relationships?  Once I
> > get an answer, I'll change the trails for consistency.
> 
> Basically, follow the directions[1] for working with route
> relationships.  Create a relation for each trail section as you have,
> give it the name of the section.  Then create a super-relation
> containing all the trail sections, and give it the name of the trail
> network.  Assign each of them an appropriate route type[2].  Add any
> extra stuff, e.g. foot=*, bicycle=*, horse=*.
> 
> I’ll admit to doing a bit of tagging for the renderer where I’ve had to
> map similar trails, by using the ref=* tag to hold the section name, and
> name=* to hold the global trail name.

The responses are for the words that I asked, but were not really for
the question that I should have asked.  Let me try to phrase the
question a different way.

Here is a simplified diagram of part of the trails that I need to map:

  A              B              C
-----+-----------------------+-----
     |                       |
      \_____________________/
                 D

Sections A, B and C are part of the Ogden River Parkway.  Sections B and
D are part of the 21st Street Pond Trail.  All of these are part of the
Ogden Trail Network.  The Ogden River Parkway is part of the Centennial
Trail.  The Ogden Trail Network and the Centennial Trail will obviously
be done with relationships.

The big question is about section B: Which trail should be used for the
"name" for this section?  Should B be part of the longer Ogden River
Parkway then B & D be done as a relationship?  Should it be done the
other way around?  Should B attributes be "name=Ogden River Parkway" and
"name_1=21st Street Pond Trail"?

Which name should take priority?

- Val -