May I ask why not source=*? I know it's basically depreciated, but many times I find myself wondering where past mappers got the info for a route (this happened just today). I would find it very helpful. It also doesn't require the tagging of all of the ways.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 8:45 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:20 PM Dave F via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> Be careful. This is where many contributors get confused. The name of the >> *path* is often not the name of the *route*. A route relation can, & often >> does, go along paths with different names. Multiple routes can go along a >> path. >> > > To give a more concrete example, there's a rail-trail in my neighborhood > called the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. > It has a relation, for several reasons that I'll discuss below. Most of > its member ways are also named 'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail'. There are a > few ways, however, that have the names of highways because freeways and > active rail lines interrupt the rail grade, and the trail follows some > lightly-trafficked streets for a short distance before rejoining the > grade. Those ways have name='Dunsbach Ferry Road', name='Island View > Road', name='Scrafford Lane', name='Iroquois Street', etc, but remain > members of the route named 'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail'. (Actually, > there are two route relations: one for cycling and one for walking.) > > Large portions of the rail-trail are, in turn, used by two long-distance > routes: the Erie Canalway Trail and the Empire State Trail. There are > separate relations for these two, and most of the members of the > Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail are also members of these other relations. > (That does not affect the names of the member ways. The Mohawk-Hudson > signage is consistent, while the signage for the other two trails is still > something of a work in progress, although there's a lot more of it than > there used to be. The naming of the member ways follows the commonest > signage.) > > There are a great many member ways because of changes of the > characteristics of the way (bridge=yes, embankment=yes, bicycle=dismount, > surface changing from asphalt to wood on a bridge, and so on.) > >> > The Mohawk-Hudson relation exists (a) because not all the member ways have > its name (since it borrows roads for short segments) and (b) because > Waymarked Trails and other data consumers do better with a route relation > grouping all the ways, rather than trying to assemble a route from ways > with nothing in common other than being named alike. > >> >> 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. >> >> >> It renders the names of the paths, not the routes. >> >> >> 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). >> >> >> Surface has no place in a route relation as it refers diectly to the >> path, not the multiple relations passing along it. Similar for the source >> tag. >> >> DaveF >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > _______________________________________________ > 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
