On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:38 PM Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail" as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out, for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings, how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm unsure if such a route will be followable. Does anyone know how to test it for routablity?
I usually just scroll down through the list of members in JOSM's relation editor and check for continuity (The 'Zoom to Next Gap' function on the right-click is also useful here.) I can't run JOSM here at work so I was going to demonstrate continuity checking using the stand-alone tool at http://ra.osmsurround.org/ - and using the worked example of the Northville-Placid, I found that it's broken at the moment: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=4286650 . (The 'Analyze on Map' button shows exactly where!) I'll try and get that fixed over the weekend. (I'm also not at all sure how I feel about replacing surveyed data with a Strava consensus, but I concede that individual GPS tracks might be wonky. It's not obvious to me that Strava would be any better on a little-traveled trail like that, though! http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6198495&_noCache=on is a route=hiking relation that isn't broken. If you look at either of those relations on hiking.waymarkedtrails.org, you'll see that they're rendered. The Waymarked Trails site also has the capability to download individual routs as GPX files. If Lonvia were to add canoe routes, you'd see them render and be able to download GPX segments as well. I suspect that the relation you're concerned with is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3568086 - which, you can see, is all there in the database. It's not going to work using the model that Waymarked Trails uses, because it's not a single route, it's a whole network. If you were to break it up into individual linear routes, I would imagine that it would work just fine, and ra.osmsurround.org would handle them just fine. RIght now http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=3568086&_noCache=on shows the mess that I'd expect. Analyzing on the map shows http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=3568086 . There are a lot of endpoints. For a typical route there will be just two - http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5595974 is pretty typical of what I'd expect a canoe route to look like, and http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5595974&_noCache=on likes it. There probably shouldn't be completely untagged ways. For the portions of the route that cross open water, I'd probably use route=canoe on the way as well as the relation, by analogy with route=ferry. Completely untagged ways introduce fragility, since a way could be shared among more than one route. (They're appropriate for multipolygon boundaries, and an untagged way that isn't part of a multipolygon is highly likely to be detritus.) You could try running https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/zWA to see what others have done with canoe route relations. (Tracking down the people who edited them is also a way of finding out who is in that constituency among the mappers.)
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
