Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bob Gambrel  wrote:

> It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
> that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.
>
> It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
> name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact,
> seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation,
> and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that
> are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are
> named "Highway 65", again by the locals.
>
> I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer
> primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what
> OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the
> map more useful to real people, not just cartographers.
>
> Thanks.  That seems to be the safest approach as perhaps some data
consumers don't yet process route relations.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

[Bob Gambrel]

It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.

It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact,
seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation,
and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that
are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are
named "Highway 65", again by the locals.

I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer
primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what
OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the
map more useful to real people, not just cartographers.

IMHO

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:02 AM  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Mtb Route Relations (Nathan Hartley)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 13:12:04 -0400
> From: Nathan Hartley 
> To: Mike Thompson 
> Cc: Open Street Map Talk-US 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Mtb Route Relations
> Message-ID:
> <
> caae2jozhu015m-mt8ftq8eaxq0f03708r-7nd6h0td06y_x...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>  Following this thread.
>
> I have the same question, after recently moving the names that folks had
> added to the way (and bridge) segments, of a linear park spanning lower
> Michigan, to the relations representing the trail segment. The entire trail
> is known as " The Great Lake-to-Lake Trails" [image: relation]
>  7962984
> , whereas it has segments known by other
> names. For instance, 22 miles are also known as the "Mike Levine Lakelands
> Trail State Park" [image: relation]
>  272564
> . I felt this was the most accurate way
> to
> map this trail. However, the temptation is strong to "map for the
> renderer", after seeing the trail names disappear from the rendered map
> .
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:55 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> > Let's say you have a trail in the US National Forest that was
> specifically
> > created for mountain biking. It has a name and a FS trail number. It is
> > represented in OSM by three ways currently: before a bridge, the bridge,
> > and after the bridge.
> >
> > Is this a good candidate for a route relation?
> > Should name=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the member
> > ways as well?
> > Should ref=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the members as
> > well?
> >
> > I am assuming that physical and legal access tags should only appear on
> > the member ways, even if every member has the same value, right?
> >
> > Just don't want to break anything...
> >
> > Mike
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200804/7c00b018/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3
> ***
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us