Yes. I have no principle problem with checkpoint members or other useful node members, if the membership of the relation provides useful information that cannot be easily extracted otherwise, by tagging a feature or simple node as a checkpoint. Same goes for trailheads. Start/endpoints are another issue. Hikes in Nederland tend to have a lot of intermediate hopon hopoff points, in fact every junction is a start/endpoint! The only real starting point is the first node of the first way, which is already in the relation. Likewise, end point is the last node of the last way. Why enter these nodes again? True roundtrips (roundtrip=yes, closed_loop=yes) also have a starting point in the relation, which happes to be the same as the ending point. Note that this holds true for sequentially ordered relations. This gives you start, end, main direction. If the relation also has members with roles (other than the forward/backward roles used for ways mainly in cycling relations) separate start-endpoints and main directions could be determined per role. Of course, you could, no will have multiple variants with the same role in almost all long hikes... Well, data consumers will probably tell me not to worry!
I also know a trail along a national border which features hundreds of numbered border stones. Maybe add a milestone role? Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 22:40 schreef Jmapb <jm...@gmx.com>: > On 12/9/2019 3:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > I have walked many "Camino" sections in Italy. The "checkpoints" are just > stamps, you can get them at many shops, hotels, restaurants, tourist info > points and the like on the way. They will stamp anything for anyone who > asks. There is no register, nothing is checked. I would not call them > checkpoints and I would certainly not attempt to map them. In Nederland, I > don't know about shops, hotels and restaurants. > On the other hand, there are special places like convents and some > churches where pilgrims can stay the night and eat very cheap or free. They > would check and maybe register the pilgrim's passport, I guess. These > points would merit rendering and routing, I think. I don't know if it helps > to tie it to a particular route though. It's a POI passed by one or more > routes. The map can show it, routers can use it and it can be exported in a > gpx or kml. > > It's one of those things I would not map unless I can be reasonably sure > it will be maintained and used for actual rendering, routing and/or export. > > Haven't hiked any bits of the Camino myself, so my impressions are > secondhand, but I was told some places -- I think the second type you > mention, the convents etc -- are required checkpoints for official > completion of the route. And to any other passers-by, they're simply a > convent, an inn, whatever amenity they actually are (and of course should > be mapped as such.) > > Regardless of whether this is a correct description of the way checkpoints > function on the Camino de Santiago, it's an illustration of how a > checkpoint COULD relate to a particular route but not to another that > shares the same way. So if (big if) we want hiking route relations to > support non-highway members, this is something to consider. > > J > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
