Hello,
Route relations 'group' together the nodes/ways/relations that form a
cycling route. The nodes/ways/relations themselves should not be tagged
with the name of the route, like you quoted the wiki.
The name of a way should be the official name of the way, not the name
of the relation(s) that way is part of. I refer to Key:name [1] which
states "The names should be restricted to the name of the item in
question only and should not include additional information not
contained in the official name such as categories, types, descriptions,
addresses, refs, or notes."
So the question remains for the ways you mention that are tagged with
name of the cycling route. Are those ways officially named exactly as
the relation name? If not, I would classify this situation as 'tagging
for the renderer' (getting the renderer to show the name of the cycling
route).
On the subject of rendering: there are many renderers that show cycling
route relations [2]. Some of them [3] are even advanced enough to grasp
the concept of 'superroutes'/'parentroutes' [4] that are common when
tagging gigantic routes that span Europe like the EuroVelo cycling
routes [5].
Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Rendered_cycle_maps
[3] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute
[5]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2763798&map=4!57.9189!7.9873
On 16-11-2020 17:17, Seth Deegan wrote:
The Cycle Routes Wiki Page
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Tagging_cycle_route_networks>
states:
"It is preferred to tag the cycle routes using relations instead
of tagging the ways."
If I come across a route that has the Ways already tagged with the
name <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=* of the route,
can I delete the name
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=*s in the Ways and just
create a Route Relation with the name?
I assume this is not prefered because a number of applications use the
names in the Ways themselves and not the Route Relation, most notably
osm-carto.
However, some benefits of doing this might be:
* Takes up less space in the DB
* More tags that apply to the whole coute could be added to the
Relation like surface
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface>=* and source
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source>=* (like the
official map of the route).
* Ways with two or more routes wouldn't be tagged name
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=route 1 & route 2
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:name%3Droute_1_%26_route_2&action=edit&redlink=1>
and
instead have their respective Relations. This could help with
preferred routing/data usage in general.
I would propose that /all/ routes and their names should be tagged in
a Relation and /never/ the Ways, even if the Route Relation only has
/one member/.
This way data consumers know that all Routes are going to be
relations. Also future Routes mapped that share the Way of a Route
that does not have Relation, won't require the mapper to shift all of
the data stored in the Way to a new Relation.
Also, if Proposed features/Relation:street
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:street> is
ever approved, this would help establish a consistent OSM-wide routing
standard.
*
*
*As for now*, I do not think that we should be deleting the name
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=*s of Ways. However, I
think osm-carto /should/ render and /prefer/ to render Relation names
for Cycle routes over the names of the Ways. The Editors should also
somehow influence users to map Relations for Cycle routes instead of
naming them.
Thoughts?
Seth Deegan (lectrician1)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
