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

I see changeset source tags as the source(s) used for the work, not necessarily the source of every change in the changeset. Most of the source tags I see state the original source of the object, not the latest source. The original source does not change when a tag or the geometry is altered. The

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

Am Mi., 18. Nov. 2020 um 13:19 Uhr schrieb ael via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:09:40AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > We have tags like source:name and source:outline for more specific > tagging. > yes, every tag could get a source tag. It would mean

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

Nov 18, 2020, 13:02 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. > Source tag on the changeset. Supported by all serious editors, if

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

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM ael via Tagging wrote: > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. > source=* by itself on a way, relation or node is not useful.

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

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:09:40AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Di., 17. Nov. 2020 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb stevea >: > > > I never said to NOT use source=* tags, they are correctly used on an > > individual datum if / as it might diverge from a greater set of data that > > otherwise has

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

Am Di., 17. Nov. 2020 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb stevea : > I never said to NOT use source=* tags, they are correctly used on an > individual datum if / as it might diverge from a greater set of data that > otherwise has another source. In short, if ALL of the data are from a > single source, use a

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

DaveF: I don’t wish to baffle, so I appreciate your clarifications. I think we agree we don’t want “less correct” (out-of-date, etc.) data in OSM. We leave to the judgement of the Contributor whether data which are imported or curated from official sources IF those sources are of high enough

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

On 17/11/2020 18:56, stevea wrote: I've found published data (from the authority authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM. Then, don’t import, curate or transfer them to OSM. I don’t believe we want "inaccurate,

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

On Nov 17, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Seth Deegan wrote: > A contributor can obtain data from many different sources within each > changeset. Pushing the tag to the changeset meta data invalidates it's > limited usefulness when added to individual objects. > > Exactly. I never said to NOT use source=*

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

> > it does an OK job of this: click the History button to get a > recent-around-here list of 20 edits (click the Load More button for 20 > more…and again and again if you like). > Yes, the History button does do a good job. But I'm talking about this: Clicking on one specific changeset will

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

The classic case for a "source" tag is for imports. It's useful to know that something came from a TIGER import, or from some public database or wherever. I think source=* makes sense when the data is literally coming from some defined external place. On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Dave F via

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

On 17/11/2020 03:09, Seth Deegan wrote: May I ask why not source=*? TBH. I'm not a fan of the tag. I don't think it adds much value. It's too subjective/variable, but... It relates to the individual contributor editing individual objects. A contributor can obtain data from many different

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

sent from a phone > On 17. Nov 2020, at 06:23, stevea wrote: > > to the degree they can be displayed in a narrow column on a web page yes, this is basically broken since the redesign (maybe 2012?), the history view used to provide a clearer overview on the full width, and this is

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

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 08:25:43PM -0800, stevea wrote: > 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

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