https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations although they
carry a high potential for the rendering of hiking trails. This proposal
was requsted by Sarah Hoffmann on the FOSSGIS conference. A only
On 06/12/2019 10:15, Michael Behrens wrote:
There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations
I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way members
only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker, etc.). This
may be deliberate, or you just haven't ex
6 Dec 2019, 11:15 by mfbehren...@gmail.com:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles>
>
>
I made some comments at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles#Alternative_vs_main
as it included image and tab
Andy Townsend :
> Michael Behrens:
>
>
> There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations
>
> I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way members
> only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker, etc.). This
> may be deliberate, or you just haven't ex
On Thursday, 5 December 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:10, Martin Scholtes
> wrote:
>
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> > Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
> > carpool.
> >
>
> I would prefer the k
I step back from my proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Subkey:changing_table:location
which is totally fine because of less work. The webapp "Babykarte" by
the way supports semicolons as seperators so I do not have problems of
having semicolons in values.
Cheers
Sören
Interesting proposal.
I think it would be useful to also add to the proposal how we structure these
hiking relations.
For example:
1) Do you put the individual ways of an alternative into the main relation,
with each member way of this alternative route assigned role 'alternative'.
(for exam
Hi,
So you would also put a short excursion into a new relation and have this
as a seperate relation?
Of couse, I see the point you want to make. This really makes sense when we
look at long alternative routes or approaches.
Would you then put all the relations into a superroute or still into new
Sorry for being late to the party!
My understanding is that there isn't a documented tagging strategy for a
marked cycle lane crossing that's mapped as on a street way.
cycleway=crossing covers this scenario if the cycleway has been separately
mapped, so I wonder if a proposal for a tag like cycl
I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation.
Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion it is said
that if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch, then all the ways
in a branch should be checked to see if the whole branch is oneway. But
that
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:29 PM Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation.
> Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion it is said that
> if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch, then all the ways in a
> branch
On 12/6/2019 1:28 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a
relation. Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion
it is said that if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch,
then all the ways in a branch should be checked t
pet, 6. pro 2019. u 19:39 Kevin Kenny napisao je:
> What about the case where it's perfectly right and proper to walk the
> way in either direction, but the route is signed in only one
> direction?
>
Religious pilgrimages come to mind, where you usually go in one direction.
But in that case, the
Am 06.12.2019 um 11:58 schrieb Philip Barnes:
> My first thought on seeing this, before reading, was a North American parkway
> where you drive through parkland.
>
> Still not sure how this isn't carpooling.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
What exactly don't you understand? Apart from your question, I can't
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:54:08AM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Andy Townsend :
>
> > Michael Behrens:
> >
> >
> > There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations
> >
> > I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way members
> > only - it doesn't mention node mem
On 07/12/19 05:45, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
On 12/6/2019 1:28 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a
relation. Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion
it is said that if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch,
then
On 06/12/19 21:23, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 06/12/2019 10:15, Michael Behrens wrote:
There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations
I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way
members only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker,
etc.). This
Thank you Michael! Saves me from doing it.. it is on my list of 'things
that should be done' .. quite a long list.
On 06/12/19 21:15, Michael Behrens wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route
sent from a phone
> On 6. Dec 2019, at 19:29, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>
> I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation.
> Oneway=yes on a way should be enough
oneway is generally not considered to apply to pedestrians.
I agree with what Kevin has written, there sho
sent from a phone
> On 6. Dec 2019, at 23:28, Martin Scholtes wrote:
>
> What exactly don't you understand? Apart from your question, I can't
> figure it out.
the name is misleading, rather than park_and_drive, the name of the concept and
borrowing from the well known park and ride concept,
I have actually come across 1 instance where a pedestrian should not go in the
opposite direction, and markings were actually different for the directions.
Most hikers would simply use the opposite route section for both directions.
That is to say it's a very rare exception. Completely different
On 06/12/2019 23:30, Warin wrote:
Start and finish points will be at the end of the main route ways ..
should be obvious? No?
It depends - as Sarah's already pointed out, routes that are more
complicated than "one start and one end" are very common. One of the
more famous examples is the
sent from a phone
> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's
> signposted for one direction.
I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g.
sign_direction=forward/backward/both
pedestrian_oneway=yes
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's
> signposted for one direction.
>
>
>
> I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g.
> sign_direction=fo
On 07/12/19 14:09, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say
it's signpo
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 04:09 Martin Scholtes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park and
> drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> Definition: Informati
26 matches
Mail list logo
