On 17-01-16 21:30, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
Tijmen Stam wrote on 2016/01/17 00:56:
Dear All,
I am sending this RFC in order to receive some feedback regarding my
OSM feature proposal for route=worship.
I'd prefer to keep the value of 'route' restrained to the mode of
locomotion,
not its purpose.
Thanks for this insight, I never considered that this was the case. I
think relation:worship=route is a dud, as there are probably not many
more worship relations.
So it should be X=worship. What would you suggest for X? An "Amenity"
relation?
Thus keep them route=hiking (66734), route=foot (26974),
So what's the difference between route=hiking and route=foot?
And what if the relation can be done with a multitude of modes?
Thinking about it, maybe route isn't a good relationship type as, in my
proposal, I allow the relationship to be without the actual route, just
the order of points: Stops are mandatory, route (ways) are optional.
Any suggestion?
and tag the purpose in a separate qualifier, such as those already
suggested
worship=yes, pilgrimage=yes, plus pilgrimage:dedication=SaintX,
worship:religion=*
I agree with the proposer that amenity=place_of_worship should not be
used on
these routes, however not because they are relations, but because these
routes are not amenities.
If you think like that, then a wayside cross isn't an amenity either.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
