On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:



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 <mailto: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 <mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>>
        wrote:

            On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:


            On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb <jm...@gmx.com
            <mailto: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
            
violatehttps://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)

So you're saying any path with a sign should be a route.   Should that extend to all tracks, and roads of all varieties also?    I assume you are not limiting this to 'path across forest', it could be path across desert,  or prairie, or town park?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to