[Talk-us] Mtb Route Relations

[Nathan Hartley]

 Following this thread.

I have the same question, after recently moving the names that folks had
added to the way (and bridge) segments, of a linear park spanning lower
Michigan, to the relations representing the trail segment. The entire trail
is known as " The Great Lake-to-Lake Trails" [image: relation]
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation> 7962984
<https://osm.org/relation/7962984>, whereas it has segments known by other
names. For instance, 22 miles are also known as the "Mike Levine Lakelands
Trail State Park" [image: relation]
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation> 272564
<https://osm.org/relation/272564>. I felt this was the most accurate way to
map this trail. However, the temptation is strong to "map for the
renderer", after seeing the trail names disappear from the rendered map
<https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=13/42.4667/-84.0681/cyclosm>.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:55 PM Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's say you have a trail in the US National Forest that was specifically
> created for mountain biking. It has a name and a FS trail number. It is
> represented in OSM by three ways currently: before a bridge, the bridge,
> and after the bridge.
>
> Is this a good candidate for a route relation?
> Should name=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the member
> ways as well?
> Should ref=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the members as
> well?
>
> I am assuming that physical and legal access tags should only appear on
> the member ways, even if every member has the same value, right?
>
> Just don't want to break anything...
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200804/7c00b018/attachment.htm>