On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb <jm...@gmx.com> wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <bradha...@fastmail.com> wrote: > >> OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. >> There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does >> it need to be a route also? >> > > Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route. > It's part of a route. > > Yes but that's *part* of a route, a route relation with many other > members. Brad's asking about single-member route relations. > And so is that 50-51 segment in the Dutch cycle network. Even if it's a particularly short one.
> Finally there's the issue of software and rendering support. Waymarked > Trails, as Kevin mentioned, only supports route relations. I believe other > hiking map renderers work similarly. Of course this is not how OSM is > "supposed" to work -- structuring data for a particular renderer or > software -- but nonetheless it is a factor in how people map. > We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
