May 15, 2020, 01:36 by jm...@gmx.com: > On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> May 14, 2020, 16:40 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> : >> >>> On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr <>>>> >>>> doerr.step...@gmail.com>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb <>>>>>> >>>>>> jm...@gmx.com>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the original question -- in what >>>>>>> circumstances are single-member >>>>>>> walking/hiking/biking route relations a >>>>>>> good mapping practice -- what would be >>>>>>> your answer? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Always >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't that violate>>>>> >>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element>>>>> ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. The route traverses the way, it's not the way. >>>> >>> >>> Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway or >>> path should be part of a route relation. >>> >>> >>> The bike trail that brad linked to, >>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400>>> -- I've never been there >>> but I don't offhand see any reason to call it a route. (Brad has >>> been there, I assume, because it looks like he updated it 2 days >>> ago.) There's no information in the relation tags that isn't also >>> on the way itself. Is there any benefit to creating a route >>> relation in cases like this? >>> >>> >> Better handling of future way splits, consistency. >> > > I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat > future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show the > whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify surface, > etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a stretch to > declare any named trail of any length as a route, > > Named way is not enough to be a route. Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be a signed path through a forest, with two objects: - path across forest (with or without name) - signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also a name) > might consider explaining it on the wiki. The current language uses a > lot of plurals... > > > > "may go along roads or trails or combinations of these" > "consist of paths taken repeatedly" > "Add all different ways of the foot/hiking route to this relation. The > order of the ways matters." > > > > > ... which leaves mappers like me & Brad scratching our heads when we > encounter one of these singleton routes. > > > J > > Not sure is it the best place (someone again decided to go crazy with templates), but I made https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations&type=revision&diff=1991147&oldid=1988978
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
