On 16/08/19 01:01, Peter Elderson wrote:
Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 15:00 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com
<mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:
On 15/08/2019 10:56, Peter Elderson wrote:
> ... So the lowest level always contains only ways, the higher
level contains only relations.
Please don't make things more complicated than they need to be. Most
hiking routes are just a single relation and are best left that way.
>
> The ways in the main relation should form one continuous sorted
(sortable) route,
No. Don't assume that route ways are sorted in OSM as they
usually aren't.
I know, and it's a pain. If software could easily sort it, fine but it
can't. That's why things that break sorting should be avoided.
> which data users can extract or link to for navigation or
planner software.
Pretty much irrelevant. As long as the data's there, software can
figure it out.
Not if there is too much data and no way to know what to choose, or no
data at all, or conflicting data.
> Note that rendering routes is not that critical,
This depends entirely on the use case. As an example, it is for me.
I mean, the rendering can be critical for the use case, but the order
and consistency of the ways is usually not critical for useful rendering.
It can be critical for routing. If a route uses a single way twice -
once forwards and then backwards then the order of the route can be hard
for a computer to figure out.
If it is in your case, you would have problems with lots of routes,
because almost all routes I see are damaged in a few places. If I
repair it and come back two weeks later, same thing.
Yes.
Even more so for admin boundaries the use roads. The roads get edited
and that editing brakes the boundaries.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
