[OSM-talk] Bot amended relations today
Werner Hoch
werner.ho at gmx.de
Tue Oct 12 18:20:20 BST 2010
Hi Dave,
On Dienstag, 12. Oktober 2010, Dave F. wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 10:44, Werner Hoch wrote:
> > The change DaveF doesn't like is the change of the tags
> >
> > type=route route=canal
> >
> > into:
> > type=waterway waterway=canal
> >
> > I thought this change is correct, as the waterway relations are
> > usually used to describe the waterway,
>
> This is not a waterway relation; it is a route relation. In my
> example the canal/river doesn't have a waterway relation; it's tags
> are added directly to the way. eg
>
> waterway=canal
> name=*
>
> In general, ways can have multiple relations atrtached to them. So it
> could have a waterway relation & a route relation.
> They are not the same thing & I think that's what's confusing you.
Seems it's not only confusing me. Isn't it.
> > There's also an ongoing proposal on the waterway relations to clean
> > up all the waterway mess [3].
> > [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway
>
> This page appears to confirm the confusion. It seems people are using
> route=* to describe waterways.
People are using type=route to describe waterways and/or routes. It's
hard to guess what they've meant.
In the past most type=route waterways were in hungary. User City-busz
has created them. He switched all the waterways to type=waterway
already.
Type=route sometimes describes the way (road, railway, waterway) and
sometimes a travel route (bicycle, hiking, ferry, boat, canoe, ...)
> I believe this is incorrect.
You might help to sort out all type=route relations that describe
waterways and retag them with type=waterway. As soon as this is done,
you'll be right.
... but be prepared that others will blame you that you're using a bot.
SCNR ;-)
Regards
Werner
More information about the talk
mailing list