Hidde thank you for the resources. I am aware of them. Also thank you for mentioning Osm2pgsql. I know what it is, but your comment about how it's meant compile relational data vs. how the OSM DB isn't is very true.
Thank you for the clarification too Peter. I guess I'm just obsessed with relational DB models. On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:23 PM Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: > AFAIK, a relation is meant to represent an entity of its own, which can be > observed and verified in the field. > Its tags should be the tags of this entity, not the tags shared by the > members. It's not a relational database model. > > If many streets are called "Polygon Alley" you tag each one with > name=Polygon Alley. No normalization applies, just tag it. > Best, Peter Elderson > > > Op ma 16 nov. 2020 om 18:17 schreef Seth Deegan <jayands...@gmail.com>: > >> 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> >> 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 >>> [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 >>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> 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 > -- Thanks, Seth
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
