[Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bob Gambrel <rjgambrel at gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
> that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.
>
> It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
> name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact,
> seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation,
> and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that
> are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are
> named "Highway 65", again by the locals.
>
> I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer
> primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what
> OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the
> map more useful to real people, not just cartographers.
>
> Thanks.  That seems to be the safest approach as perhaps some data
consumers don't yet process route relations.
Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200805/ba7cc0e5/attachment.htm>