For map display, I can see that. The ways are added to a higher level (if one exist) and the symbol is ignored.
I am not sure about routing/navigating. especially network routing. I imagine a network router has to create an instant route, so it has to decide whether to use the segment or not. The higher relations may not apply, but the segment may be useable for the instant route. I think the routing algorithm would need a tag for that? I also think in the course of time, many segments will not be part of any relation any more. At first they might be shared, but they may be removed from the higher relation(s), the mapper doesn't know that (s)he was the last user, so will not modify the segent relation. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op za 16 mrt. 2019 om 08:25 schreef Sarah Hoffmann <lon...@denofr.de>: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 02:43:03PM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I like Sarah's proposal too, especially for walking routes. I'm not sure > it > > would work for complex PT routes, where routability is involved. > > > > One issue: a route relation can be a route on it's own AND part of a > longer > > route (or node network), on any level of the hierarchy. segment=yes would > > not cover that, I think? > > In that case, nothing would be needed. It is only important to know when > a relation is not a route on its own. Because then that route can be > ignored > in lists or when adding markings to the map. > > Sarah > > > And when naming parts, you'll have to cover the case that a route can be > > part of multiple longer routes, the route itself may contain smaller > parts > > that are also part of multiple routes. > > Parts can have any of the network tags. > > > > This complication is not created by Sarah's idea, but I would like to see > > that solved too. > > > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > > > > > > Op vr 15 mrt. 2019 om 14:26 schreef Richard Fairhurst < > rich...@systemed.net > > >: > > > > > marc marc wrote: > > > > imho nearly no routing tools (nor foot nor bus) is currently > > > > able to use a relation type=route with relations as child. > > > > > > cycle.travel can. > > > > > > I don't particularly care what's decided, but I would like it to be > > > consistent (which right now it certainly isn't), and personally I > don't see > > > the need for type=superroute when you can just have relations as > children > > > of > > > type=route. I like Sarah's proposal for route_segment=yes. > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Tagging mailing list > > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
