Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 15/05/2020 12:28, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 03:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Any signed route may be mapped as a route relation. Depends how broadly or narrowly you define "signed route." And sometimes signed route

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:35 AM s8evq wrote: > The network key used on hiking/foot/horse/... relations "(...)indicates the > scope of the route." > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network#Bicycle.2C_hiking_and_other_recreational_routes), > so international, national, regional or

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:22 AM Paul Allen wrote: > Are those important in all instances or just the examples you gave? The > footpaths and bridleways I deal with have references (in official records, not > on signages) but are not part of a network. Sorry, I was unclear. Network is important

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 14:11:44 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 13:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The relation can have ref, network (this is important), > > > > Are those important in all instances or just the examples you gave? The > footpaths and bridleways I deal with have

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 13:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: The relation can have ref, network (this is important), > Are those important in all instances or just the examples you gave? The footpaths and bridleways I deal with have references (in official records, not on signages) but are not part of a

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:31 AM Paul Allen wrote: > I've encountered footpaths and bridleways that include farm service roads as > part of their route. So far, I've mapped the footpaths as the bits that > aren't > service roads. That renders the functionality of the ways but doesn't > encode

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 03:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Any signed route may be mapped as a route relation. > Depends how broadly or narrowly you define "signed route." > > And sometimes signed route will be signed with paint markings on trees, > or

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 11:28:42 +0200 (CEST), Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > BTW, I remember proposal about named roles and > that some people stuff signposts into route relations. I also never added signposts in route relations before. The original proposal on roles in hiking relations

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

May 15, 2020, 08:28 by s8e...@runbox.com: > On Fri, 15 May 2020 01:53:37 +0200 (CEST), Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> Not sure is it the best place (someone again decided to go crazy with >> templates), but >> I made >>

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 01:53:37 +0200 (CEST), Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Not sure is it the best place (someone again decided to go crazy with > templates), but > I made >

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

May 15, 2020, 04:05 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > > > On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 15, 2020, 01:36 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> : >> >>> On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >>> May 14, 2020, 16:40 by

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 15, 2020, 01:36 by jm...@gmx.com: On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 14, 2020, 16:40 by jm...@gmx.com : On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

May 15, 2020, 01:36 by jm...@gmx.com: > On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> May 14, 2020, 16:40 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> : >> >>> On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AMSteve Doerr <

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 14, 2020, 16:40 by jm...@gmx.com: On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: On

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

May 14, 2020, 16:40 by jm...@gmx.com: > On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48AM Steve Doerr <>> >> doerr.step...@gmail.com>> >wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: >>> On Wed, May 13,

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: Regarding the original question -- in what

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr wrote: > On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote: > >> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are >> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice >> -- what would

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

sent from a phone > On 14. May 2020, at 12:49, Steve Doerr wrote: > > Doesn't that violate > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ? it doesn’t. Any elements you like :) The tag defines what is an element, for example a route is something “on top” of a highway

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Steve Doerr wrote: > On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote: > >> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are >> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice >> -- what would

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb > wrote: Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice -- what would be your answer? Always

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote: > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop > treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't > deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

Obvious, route relations covers the same type of objects that has different names, even in English. In other languages you will get even more names, but I will not start using type=szlak_turystyczny relation type. May 13, 2020, 18:17 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > It isn't a route, except in

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

I prefer a single member route relation than a way with type=route, route=whatever. The later lead to much more uncertainty in the tags meaning. Yves Le 13 mai 2020 18:17:37 GMT+02:00, brad a écrit : >It isn't a route, except in OSM, it's just a trail. > >On 5/13/20 9:09 AM, Paul Johnson

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

May 13, 2020, 17:43 by jm...@gmx.com: > > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > >> >> We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It'stime to >> stop treating this basic primitive asentity-non-grata.  If tools >> >> still>>  can't deal with

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

It isn't a route, except in OSM, it's just a trail. On 5/13/20 9:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad > wrote: It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.  I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case. 

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop > treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't > deal with this, this is on the tools and their

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools /still/ can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now. Sure. Regarding the original question -- in

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad wrote: > It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route. I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case. Data consumers still need to know the route is there. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route. On 5/12/20 8:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad > wrote: OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > >> OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. >> There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does >> it

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote: OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does it need to

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. > There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does > it need to be a route also? > Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route.

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path.  There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does it need to be a route also? On 5/12/20 11:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson wrote: My view is that a route

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

Le 12 mai 2020 19:02:24 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson a écrit : >My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A >sign, a >trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's >not a >route. > >The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a > trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a > route. > > The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a route. The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 12 mei 2020 om 18:28 schreef

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

We had a pretty lengthy discussion last October subject:'Cycling relation misuse' .  I got the impression that a route should be more than just a short trail. Are you saying that every trail should be route? Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400 My subject line should have

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2020, at 06:24, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes > that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a > route relation describing it. > > Is there a reason that you see route relations for

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

Can you give an example where you think it's wrong? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op di 12 mei 2020 om 04:17 schreef brad : > I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short > trails/paths. This is wrong isn't it? Do you suppose that folks are > doing this to get better rendering? > Brad

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a route relation describing it. Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as being 'wrong'? On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

Can you point to some examples? In Belgium and The Netherlands we have node-networks. and some of the routes that are mapped in those networks can be pretty short. The shortest I know is only a few meters long: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1696883#map=19/51.01511/4.44965 regards m. On

[Tagging] relations & paths

I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are doing this to get better rendering? Brad ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org