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 will be signed with paint markings on trees, or by piles of rocks or by some other method rather than be a sign. That's a pretty broad definition. Which is fine by me, because it definitely includes footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways, and BOATs in the UK. England and Wales have specific signs for such things: https://www.simplyhike.co.uk/blogs/blog/a-guide-to-footpath-signs-in-england-and-wales Scotland and Northern Ireland also have signs for these things, but they're different from the ones in England and Wales. It's probably worth an explanation of "BOATs etc."* for a non-local audience. A "public footpath" is a particular legal designation in England and Wales. It means that, in addition to any other legal rights you might have, you're allowed to go from A to B on foot. These have reference numbers (that may actually vary from parish to parish). An example that I'm familiar with is "Ilkeston FP 81" https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/U2f . That's made up of 22 different ways on the ground (different surfaces, bridges, that sort of thing). It's not in itself a "route" of any sort - it's just an attribute of the underlying ways. There is no on-the-ground signage of "Ilkeston FP 81". That approach to tagging works in the UK because, generally speaking, we don't have overlaps of either prow_refs or FWIW highway refs. In the US and countries where route numbers can overlap it would make sense to map these as relations in OSM, but here it doesn't, because they don't. Those 22 ways in OSM are also part of "Erewash Valley Trail" https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1458963 . That is a route, and it's signed on the ground as such. Data consumers are then able to use that data and present it to users in an appropriate format. As an example, https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17=52.997594=-1.30515 : * Has the prow_ref in black in brackets because they're not typically signed * Has purple dots for the walking route relation * Has the walking route relation name not in brackets because it is signed Best Regards, Andy * "byway open to all traffic" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 local. And that's not terribly useful in North America, where we wind up inventing the classification. Except for the National Scenic Trails, and various state cycle routes, everything is local. Local clubs often collaborate on joining their hiking trails into longer routes. We tag 'Long Path' with 'rwn' but there's really no regional network; https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 is maintained by multiple clubs, loosely led by New York-New Jersey Trail conference. The tagging scheme appears to presume that there is a hierarchical administration of such things, and all the trails will be designated by some authority - international, national, regional and local would correspond to a hierarchy like Interstate/US Route; State Route; County Route on the roads. But US hiking trails simply don't have such a thing, so it's a bit of a force-fit. Here, it's all organized bottom-up. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 for road (and some cycle) routes in the US, because if you're going to do anything more than the most basic support (if, for instance, you want to render pictorial signs), you need to know the network of a numbered route. We hack that for the main renderer by putting a `ref=*` like "CR 103" on the ways, but that's far from ideal, because different counties use different symbololgy, and it's not guaranteed that a route maintained *by* a county is entirely *in* the county. State-level example: About half of New York State Route 120A https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/407958 is in Connecticut. It's maintained and signed as a numbered New York highway. It's not the only one. If you look at the same area on https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.0435=-73.6807=15, you'll see that it's rendered with the shield of a New York route and not the square of a Connecticut one. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 references (in official records, > not > on signages) but are not part of a network. 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 local. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 network. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 in any way that the service road is a public footpath. I did find > one example of somebody doing it differently: he mapped a bridleway in > its entirety, including the bit along a service road, and also mapped > the service road (which coincided with part of the bridleway). It > still rendered the service road as a service road on standard carto but > using the query tool on the bridleway showed the full extent of the > bridleway. > > Using a relation seems like another way of handling the situation. > Or maybe I'm misunderstanding... Using a relation is the PREFERRED way of handling that situation. I have a strong preference NOT to create two ways for the same physical object, so where a public footpath is on a road - which happens a lot around here - I map that segment of the road, map the off-road segments as footways or paths as appropriate, and use the route relation. Thus, Old Piseco Road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20092775 is itself tagged '`highway=tertiary` (and has some other rubbish from TIGER). It's a member of the road route 'Hamilton County Road #24', and a member of the foot route 'Northville-Placid Trail.' I don't want to have to dredge up the route information (what does the waymark look like, etc.) from an enigmatic and tightly encoded `ref=*` on a way. The relation can have ref, network (this is important), name, symbol, whatever is needed. (It should NOT have physical properties of the route such as `surface` or `smoothness`: those go on the ways.) Otherwise, I have a problem with concurrences like Old Piseco Road. As a trail, it's part of a 'rwn' network. As a road route, it's part of the network named 'US:NY:Hamilton'. What do I put in `network=*` if I map it just on a way? Island View Road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5595536) is part of multiple relations: Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike trail as a foot route, Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail as a cycle route (Note that the two are different because the cycle route doesn't use the sidewalk in urban neighbourhoods), Erie Canalway Trail (an unfinished relation, and the mappers that maintain it have yet to make the split between road and sidewalk), and the (unmapped as yet) Empire State Trail). (Memo to self: Downgrade it: It's clearly `residential` and not `tertiary`.) The Bear Mountain Bridge https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/84620188 hosts two road routes (US 6 and US 202), a cycle route (NY Bicycle Route 9), and a major foot route (the Appalachian Trail). Obviously, there's no sensible way to represent all that without the relations. Moreover, a route relation remains a single object even if the way is split. When I split https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507687342 to add the bridge, I didn't need to worry about the relations except to make sure that all three parts stayed in them. And a route relation can easily be overlaid on existing ways. When they posted orange markers on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/509364137, I simply took the formerly-unmarked trail (which wasn't part of any relation, not being marked!) and added it to the route relation that I created for it. As a data consumer, I have a strong preference to have only one way of looking for something. Looking for route information on ways, and assembling ways that belong to the same route, is tricky. (More important, it's brittle, and there are a lot of things to go wrong if the data aren't perfect.) Obviously, it wouldn't be tricky at all if the route were a single segment, like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3122185 - but why add a corner case rather than treating all routes uniformly? So I'm of the opinion, "if it would need a route relation if something else were concurrent, or if it were split, then it needs a route relation." -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 by piles of rocks or by some other method rather than be a sign. > That's a pretty broad definition. Which is fine by me, because it definitely includes footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways, and BOATs in the UK. England and Wales have specific signs for such things: https://www.simplyhike.co.uk/blogs/blog/a-guide-to-footpath-signs-in-england-and-wales Scotland and Northern Ireland also have signs for these things, but they're different from the ones in England and Wales. 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 in any way that the service road is a public footpath. I did find one example of somebody doing it differently: he mapped a bridleway in its entirety, including the bit along a service road, and also mapped the service road (which coincided with part of the bridleway). It still rendered the service road as a service road on standard carto but using the query tool on the bridleway showed the full extent of the bridleway. Using a relation seems like another way of handling the situation. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding... -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles) has stranded. Probably tried to achieve too much at once? There is now a slimmed down proposal made by Peter Elderson focusing on just the basic roles (alternative, excursion, approach, connection) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles For example, one of your remarks, that we should have a way to indicate one way restrictions for pedestrians is not included in Peter Eldersons proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations=revision=1991147=1988978
>>
>
> Hey, what's so crazy about this :) :). We discussed the hiking/foot route
> relation overhaul a while ago and in the end, 2 people suggested a template
> might be the best way to have the information consistently on multiple pages.
>
OK, this one is not so bad after looking at it again.
Still, I it was quite tricky to check whatever I am not
duplicating content ("What links here" is your help)
and I am still not 100% sure that I have not missed anything.
> Thanks for the edit by the way. I think it fits there perfectly.
>
Glad that it improved description!
BTW, I remember proposal about named roles and
that some people stuff signposts into route relations.
I do neither, and I have not checked whatever it is popular
and worth documenting.
Feel free to mention that if necessary!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations=revision=1991147=1988978 Hey, what's so crazy about this :) :). We discussed the hiking/foot route relation overhaul a while ago and in the end, 2 people suggested a template might be the best way to have the information consistently on multiple pages. Thanks for the edit by the way. I think it fits there perfectly. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
