You indicate that you are aware that relations aren't categories [1]. So
indeed, grouping elements which share a certain tag is not useful.
Finding nodes/ways that contain a certain tag is easily possible with
specialized query tooling such as the Overpass API [2]. Data duplication
across elements is not really an issue, and simplicity and correctness
are more important.
What do you mean by the "primary relation for a way"? Relations group
elements together, and as such a way can be part of any number of
relations. The way itself does not 'know' if it is part of any relations
(although you could query such information).
I want to mention tools like Osm2pgsql [3] which transforms the OSM data
model to a relational database such as PostgreSQL. You can import vast
amounts of data and pre-process it for your specific application if you
so desire. You could group certain information together if your use-case
would benefit from it.
Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
[2] https://dev.overpass-api.de/overpass-doc/en/
[3] https://osm2pgsql.org/
On 16-11-2020 18:13, Seth Deegan wrote:
Honestly I think I'm just confused.
I guess ways /do have/ official names, it's just that I keep on
thinking about the possible /conceptual/ conflicts between two
different Routes under one way (this statement probably doesn't
make sense).
Also, I'm someone who loves relations and finds myself thinking about
putting all of the elements that share a tag under a relation constantly!
I guess just keeping them in their original Ways is the way to go.
However, /if there was a way/ to indicate the "primary" relation for a
Way, then I'd be all for it.
IDK. Save space wherever possible seems to be the common theme.
Problems with this though would be that renderers/data consumers would
have to go into the relation every time they want to find more tags
for an element.
There are pros and cons. I'm also aware relations aren't categories.
Thank you for the clarification.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:55 AM Hidde Wieringa
<hi...@hiddewieringa.nl <mailto:hi...@hiddewieringa.nl>> wrote:
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
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>
[2]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Rendered_cycle_maps
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Rendered_cycle_maps>
[3] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org>
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute>
[5]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2763798&map=4!57.9189!7.9873
<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 <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
--
Thanks,
Seth
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
