On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:07:50PM +0000, marc marc wrote: > Le 15.03.19 à 12:27, Hufkratzer a écrit : > > is that a good/sufficient reason to define a new relation type? > > imho nearly no routing tools (nor foot nor bus) is currently able > to use a relation type=route with relations as child. > so that's a good reason to create/improve a doc if superrelation is > needed for ex for routing (of course maybe some mapper need superroute > only for the fun of having a relation that collect all other). > > for ex how a "data user" can detect "it 's a superroute" <> "it's 2 > route with a shared segment" ?
waymarkedtrails uses the network tag as an indicator. With the same network tag, the child is considered a segment. If the network tag is different, then the child is considered a route on its own that happens to be used by the superroute. > maybe the tag network should be the same and/or the name (the country > XYZ may move the a scope tag) > the main relation must/should/mustn't/shouldn't have all/some same tag > as the child ? > all/a lot of child tag must move to the main relation only ? (that's > what we do with MP : we don't duplicate alls tags to way + relation) > etc... The disadvantage of all these proposals is that it is impossible to figure out if a relation is a route or only part of a superroute without looking at the parent. That information is much more valuable than the information that a route is a 'superroute' (that's obvious anyway as soon as there is a relation member). So I'd prefer seeing a dedicated tag added to relations that are just a segment. 'route_segment=yes', for example. Or even better, directly name the sections, e.g. 'part=German section' or 'part=2. Etappe'. Then we can get rid of the descriptive name tags. Kind regards Sarah _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
