Bad practice if you ask me. Where do we limit what POI is nice to add? I have seen huts and shelters and viepoint and buildings added to routes in Sweden. It completely botches up the height profiling by data consumers like waymarked trails and the calculation of route length becomes harder.
I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead. I really think it would be nice to be able to say query and list all hotels, wilderness huts and shelters within 200 m of the Kungsleden trail (Swedens most famous trail) but I don't think adding them to relations is the way forward. Maybe this can already be done with overpass. At least JOSM can download information along a way so it should be possible to implement. Cheers PangoSE Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> skrev: (22 juli 2020 14:04:25 CEST) >Am Di., 21. Juli 2020 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb pangoSE ><pang...@riseup.net>: > >> Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST) >> >On 21/07/2020 12:04, Michal Fabík wrote: >> >> > >> >I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route >markers) >> >to the relevant hiking route relation. >> >> That does not sound right to me. Why would you do that? A route >relation >> is in my mind for ways or relations of ways that make up the path. >Nothing >> else. > > > >it is common practise, at least in some areas. "Why"? Because it is a >way >to connect the guideposts to the route. It also seems logical that the >route consists also of these posts. > >Cheers >Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
