Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

On Nov 16, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Seth Deegan wrote: > And of course, I have got this response before. But now that I think about > it, the limiting factors seem to be: > • Editors (I use iD primarily) do not allow you to easily see the exact > past history of an element. OSM is not its

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

On the history of elements, this tool is particularly good I think : https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/ Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

And of course, I have got this response before. But now that I think about it, the limiting factors seem to be: 1. Editors (I use iD primarily) do not allow you to easily see the *exact* past history of an element. Nor does osm.org really (why does it give a list of changed elements and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

On Nov 16, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Seth Deegan wrote: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

On 16/11/2020 16:17, Seth Deegan wrote: The Cycle Routes Wiki Page 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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

I don't map cycle routes, but the issue sounds similar to hiking routes and administrative boundaries. Long-distance hiking trails often traverse regular roads in between stretches of woods. So the trail's route relation is named "Such and Such long distance trail" or whatever, but the parts on

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

The ways making up a cycle route typically have names themselves, and the Route name normally is not the name of the way, Hence in many cases this would be a mapping error, i.e. the name of the way is not correctly tagged in the database. There may be exceptions to this general, abstract

[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

The Cycle Routes Wiki Page 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