On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 10:20 PM stevea wrote:
> I have mapped perhaps tens of thousands of miles of bike routes in OSM.
> Yes, really. I don't do this sort of "apply the name of the route to the
> element track/path." We shouldn't.
>
> Zeke's example is excellent and is a good reason for
Thinking about why people may be doing this, and based on recent experience:
You come across a bicycle or hiking route sign "on the ground", but have no
idea what relation it is referring to. So you tag it as name, just for the
time being.
Il giorno sab 31 dic 2022 alle ore 18:50 Anne- Karoline
Vào lúc 08:54 2022-12-30, Jmapb đã viết:
On 12/30/2022 2:22 AM, stevea wrote:
I agree with Mateusz here: whether to tag a way after the name of a
route which includes it (if it didn't have a name=* tag beforehand)
isn't a "one size fits all" situation. It's difficult to describe
what the
I have mapped perhaps tens of thousands of miles of bike routes in OSM. Yes,
really. I don't do this sort of "apply the name of the route to the element
track/path." We shouldn't.
Zeke's example is excellent and is a good reason for "route element naming" to
be "case by case" rather than
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:51 PM Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> I think this inconsistency is bad for OSM.
>
> Many ways don't have names, even if they have routes along them. They are
> just footpaths, & tracks etc.
>
> This instance on giving them a name tag is fake.
Vr 30 dec. 2022 om 20:51 schreef Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> I think this inconsistency is bad for OSM.
>
> Many ways don't have names, even if they have routes along them. They are
> just footpaths, & tracks etc.
>
> This instance on giving them a name tag is fake. It'll
+1
PeterPan99
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 20:02, Dave F via Tagging
wrote: On 29/12/2022 09:47, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the 'names' should be removed from these 'unnamed' things
> ..the 'name' is the name of the route not the individual tracks/paths
>
On 29/12/2022 09:47, Warin wrote:
Hi,
I think the 'names' should be removed from these 'unnamed' things
..the 'name' is the name of the route not the individual tracks/paths
some of which existed before some routes were created.
+1
DaveF
___
I think this inconsistency is bad for OSM.
Many ways don't have names, even if they have routes along them. They
are just footpaths, & tracks etc.
This instance on giving them a name tag is fake. It'll mean sections
with one route will have their name tag rendered, but where additions
One of the names might be the predominant name used locally.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 2:19 PM Yves via Tagging
wrote:
> Remove the name of the way, put a name on each relations. Except if it
> makes sense to keep the name also on the way for whatever reason you see
> fit.
>
> Le 30 décembre 2022
Remove the name of the way, put a name on each relations. Except if it makes
sense to keep the name also on the way for whatever reason you see fit.
Le 30 décembre 2022 18:06:12 GMT+01:00, Dave F via Tagging
a écrit :
>What do you do if there are two routes?
>
>DaveF
>
>On 30/12/2022 02:19,
What do you do if there are two routes?
DaveF
On 30/12/2022 02:19, brad wrote:
+1
If the only name is the route name I think it makes good sense to put
it on the local way too, that's the name of the trail.
Brad
On 12/29/22 08:59, Zeke Farwell wrote:
I've heard the assertion that a way has
On 12/30/2022 2:22 AM, stevea wrote:
I agree with Mateusz here: whether to tag a way after the name of a route which includes
it (if it didn't have a name=* tag beforehand) isn't a "one size fits all"
situation. It's difficult to describe what the right thing to do is in all cases.
I've
I agree with Mateusz here: whether to tag a way after the name of a route
which includes it (if it didn't have a name=* tag beforehand) isn't a "one size
fits all" situation. It's difficult to describe what the right thing to do is
in all cases.
> On Dec 29, 2022, at 11:18 PM, Mateusz
This does not apply everywhere, even if applies in some cases.
Many trails are minor and their names are not actually names of roads/paths
where they lead even if this road/path is nameless.
In Poland even for
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C5%82%C3%B3wny_Szlak_Beskidzki
it is debatable
+1
If the only name is the route name I think it makes good sense to put it
on the local way too, that's the name of the trail.
Brad
On 12/29/22 08:59, Zeke Farwell wrote:
I've heard the assertion that a way has no name but the route that
passes over it does many times. While this is true
I know this problem from cycle routes. Individual ways that are part of a
hiking or cycling route should normally not carry the name of the route.
First because in most cases it will be factually wrong, but also such
invented names will make it difficult to find ways with genuinly missing
names in
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 1:08 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> So most of the time this would be an error, but you can't be sure without
> survey.
>
I agree on the survey part, but not on the "most of the time" part.
Sometimes it's an error, sometimes it's not. How likely it is to be one or
the other
I have seen some paths which actually had the same name as the hiking trail running over it. Normally this is not the case, the path usually has is own local name or no name at all. So most of the time this would be an error, but you can't be sure without survey.Fr Gr Peter EldersonOp 29 dec. 2022
It makes sense to me that each segment of a long distance walking/hiking route
should be looked at individually. It might have no name (uses a section of a
driveway), it might have a name of its own (the “San Clemente Beach Trail” near
me is part of the long distance “California Coastal
I've heard the assertion that a way has no name but the route that passes
over it does many times. While this is true in some cases, in others it is
not. Where the primary purpose of the way is not for the route, this does
make sense. For example mentioned by Jmapb where the Appalachian trail
On 12/29/2022 10:13 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
Yes, the way name tag should be the most local trail name. However,
sometimes there is no local trail name and the long distance route
name is the only name. In this case putting the long distance route
name on the ways also makes sense.
I've been
On 29/12/2022 15:13, Zeke Farwell wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 9:15 AM Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
The actual way routes progress along often have their own, different,
name. These should be ithe name placed in the way's name tag.
Yes, the way name tag should be the most local
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 9:15 AM Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> The actual way routes progress along often have their own, different,
> name. These should be ithe name placed in the way's name tag.
>
Yes, the way name tag should be the most local trail name. However,
On 29/12/2022 12:32, Yves via Tagging wrote:
The simpliest way to map a long route is to give the same name to
every ways it is composed of.
The reason route relations were created was because long routes share
the /same/ ways. It avoids cluttering up the name & ref tags
The actual way
The simpliest way to map a long route is to give the same name to every ways it
is composed of. Then, in second position, you can also create a relation.
Regards,
Yves
Le 29 décembre 2022 10:47:44 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>It appears that route name are being
Hi,
It appears that route name are being applied to track/path names,
I believe this comes about due to signs that state the route names and
point along the track/path that appear to the name of the track/path.
For example Way 228853104
27 matches
Mail list logo
