brad:
> There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for the
> great divide route. There are also many websites which discuss the route
> and show maps. It's in the public domain.
>
>
I've looked at the info for the Great Divide MTB-trail without any prior
knowledge.
On
> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 11:22 heeft Philip Barnes het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Not just the driver. Routing software can be used to determine which vehicle
> can give the quickest response.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
I would never trust OSM data for emergency routing or any purpose requiring
and shortcuts.
For automated checks closed_loop=yes might come in handy. If the tag is there
but the route is not a true closed loop, it needs maintenance in OSM.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 19 dec. 2019 om 22:40 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
>
t.
FrGr Peter Elderson
> Op 21 dec. 2019 om 15:31 heeft marc marc het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> I always thought that routrip=yes was an alternative when there is no
> start and end point to enter in from=* to=* key.
> Otherwise circular routes with a known start/end point
clear what it means if a PT-route is
mapped as a roundtrip? Is this information really used?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 22 dec. 2019 om 15:34 schreef marc marc :
> 3 240 (10%) objects with rountrip=3 also have public_transport:version=*
> ex https://www.ratp.fr/plans-li
>
> If following the route marking you will get back to start... It's a circular
> route.
> As previously stated you could find marking on both directions and be a
> single line straight and then reverse.
> With old wiki definition this is Roundtrip=no... Now it is Roundtrip=yes
> Seems sane to
roundtrip=yes only for routes designed for roundtrips. Which
can encompass a lot of geographical layouts, even single chain linear
routes as illustrated by your example. A closed_loop would automatically
qualify as a roundtrip, I think, but I trust someone will come up with an
exception!
Fr gr Peter
be seen as a roundtrip, because the 'transport'
takes you back to back to to starting point.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 20 dec. 2019 om 04:21 heeft Graeme Fitzpatrick het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:37, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>
, do they need a member role?
If so, would "checkpoint" and "trailhead" be acceptable and useful role
values?
Would it be acceptable/useful for mappers to include a node in a route
relation with a "checkpoint" role without any
Both options do not support established and documented tagging. The way to
manage this kind of change is to discuss a road to better tagging
while keeping rendering of the established tagging until this has been
accomplished. If retagging is a part of improvement, time should be allowed
to get
=yes, which is the established tagging.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 9 feb. 2020 om 03:35 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> In the discussion about `barrier=hedge` areas, it is clear that
> mappers want a way to tag small areas of bushes and shrubs, and no
to problems, rethink it and take another path to get to a shared
solution.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 9 feb. 2020 om 03:30 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> I don't understand why mappers in Zeeland are considered less reliable
> than those in South Hollan
might think “hey, that’s neat!” and start using the roles.
Middle case, renderers test it and give useful feedback for a better
proposal. If this proposal would lead to different roles, I could simply
alter the roles in the course of regular route maintenance.
Peter Elderson
Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om
more time, maintenance and tooling. I don't
foresee mappers in Nederland to do it that way, but in other countries
putting everything in one big relation is more common.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op wo 4 mrt. 2020 om 15:58 schreef Kevin Kenny :
> I certainly agree in principle that having a notat
Do you know trails with detached sections? We have some in Nederland, on
the islands. Doesn't fit in the proposed role scheme, I think.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 4 mrt. 2020 om 23:09 schreef Kevin Kenny :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:02 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Maybe someone
se may or may not have a role for that
one section... Can't be easy.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op za 29 feb. 2020 om 23:10 schreef Peter Elderson :
> I think the proposal is not ready for use or for voting, but there does
> not seem to be much progress.
>
>
> The basics are clear enough I th
elevation profiles and export).
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 11:07 schreef s8evq :
> Hello everyone,
>
> What is the status of this proposal? Should we go forward and start voting?
> Lots of people have added valuable information and insight. It would be a
> pity if th
lines or something, but exclude
those from calculations and main export.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 12:29 schreef Andrew Harvey :
> I agree with Peter, it'll probably be better to start with the basics, get
> that approved so at least there is some improvement, then move f
Op 5 mrt. 2020 om 23:18 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende
geschreven:
> On 6/3/20 1:27 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Do you know trails with detached sections? We have some in Nederland, on the
>> islands. Doesn't fit in the proposed role scheme, I think
attached to the main trail. A renderer could well decide to render
excursion same as main, while excluding the excursions from the exports and
calculations.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 om 06:23 schreef Jmapb :
> On 3/5/2020 9:27 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Do you kn
If I understand this correctly, your proposal turns route relations into
routing relations.
Wouldn't that imply that a chart of PT lines in, say, a city, region or
country would need to route everything first, then render instead of just
render the route from OSM?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 6
> Wouldn't that imply that a chart of PT lines in, say, a city, region or
country would need to route everything first, then render instead of just
render the route from OSM?
>
> Seems so. Is it a significant burden to include a router with a renderer?
>
I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me
John Doe :
> 06-Mar-2020 20:39:30 Peter Elderson :
>
> > > [...] Is it a significant burden to include a router with a renderer?
> > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to
> be re-routed to display or use them. How can you be sure the re-cr
discussion on this, but no solution was found.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 23 jan. 2020 om 21:11 schreef Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:
> Hello,
>
> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my firs
"for instance in France a car driver crossing a sidewalk must give way
> to others" says the wiki page. Presumably this is a different legal
> case than at a crosswalk in France.
>
In Nederland, if traffic has to cross a sidewalk to get onto a road, it
must give way to all other traffic when
sidewalk=yes?
Best, Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
So for pedestrians, you would add a node on the blue line where it crosses
the centerline of the sidewalk tagged highway=crossing,
crossing=?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:48 schreef Marc Gemis :
> I made a quick sketch:
>
> https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Sc
Same thing in Nederland.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
> In Germany, this is how the beginning / end of living streets work:
>
> http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielst
Florimond Berthoux :
> No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you
> thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway
> together because it's the same layout, the same problem.
>
Ok, my bad. Separate tagging for continuous sidewalk and continuous
highway=give_way would not map the situation, just the priority. Maybe it's
just me, but I think highway=give_way is an unclear tag. Who gives way to
who, in what direction?
I think it is better to tag it as a type of crossing. Can be rendered, can
be routed.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 24 jan
Joseph Eisenberg :
> The Netherlands has been claimed as a place where barrier=hedge areas
> are used properly and are necessary. I have already downloaded one
> whole provicne, Zeeland, which has quite complete landcover and
> landuse mapping due to an import. In Zeeland there are 149 uses of
>
Christoph Hormann :
> I originally was under the impression that
> use of barrier tags as a secondary tag for landuse polygons etc. was
> consensus among mappers based on the fairly large use numbers for that
> (>350k)
Correct.
> but it quite clearly isn't.
Yes it is, but an explicit
oseph Eisenberg :
> 2) Many hedges which were mapped like areas are currently missing
> `area=yes` tags. In this comment
> (
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3844#issuecomment-582692389
> )
> you can see that over 90% of the `barrier=hedge` closed ways in a
> Dutch
Well, I'm not so good with overpass turbo, but this query gives an
impression:
[out:json][timeout:25];
(
way["barrier"="hedge"]["area"="yes"]({{bbox}});
);
// print results
out body;
>;
out skel qt;
When I run it on different parts of Nederland and Belgium, it finds many
hedge areas in most
Christoph Hormann :
> On Friday 07 February 2020, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > E.g. if a solution would be to tag hedge areas as natural=hedge
> > or landcover=hedge, then the change path would be for the renderer to
> > temporarily render the old AND the new tagging, so mappers
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging :
> If you think that there is broad support for landcover proposal - feel
> free to
> start vote on the landcover proposal.
>
How about changing established tagging for hedge areas - was there a
proposal? What did it propose? I must have missed it somehow.
Florimond Berthoux :
> With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite
> for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value
>
traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk
>
Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should
be considered
a roundabout, it
still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO
the crossing nodes would carry the attributes.
Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal!
Best, Peter Elderson
Op za 25 jan. 2020 om 17:28 schreef Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.be
Are there many correctly tagged features with the combi barrier=hedge &
area=yes where area=yes could be meant to specify something else than the
hedge? Most polygon features are implicit areas, I think?
Peter Elderson
> Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:22 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende
>
+1
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:37 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> On 05-02-2020 16:10, Paul Allen wrote:
>> 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render
>> as before, a hedge that has area.
>
> There are so
, an
ushahidi-type of register is better I think.
For the cams themselves I see a use case, but the presence or absence of a
sign does not seem relevant to me.
The overall camera situation is very dynamic, so I do see a problem with
coverage, quality, maintenance and actuality.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op wo
For Nederland: yes and yes.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 11 jan. 2020 om 06:23 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> The tag route=inline_skates was added to Map features, but it has
> only been added a few times in the past 4 years.
>
> Are there actually
+1
If don't see this as a problem. If more clarity is needed, add tags for
specific aspects. E.g "vigour" scale if one exists. Boot type recommendation
scale, where 1=flipflop and 10=hoverboots.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 14:59 heeft Joseph Eisenberg
> het vol
Peter Elderson :
> Florimond Berthoux :
>
>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>
>>
> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "t
, e.g
network:type=commuter_network (tagged on the commuter routes) comparable to
network:type=node_network.
Best, Peter Elderson
> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 19:35 heeft Volker Schmidt het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>
> I would like to return to the initial question of this thre
Florimond Berthoux :
> So I propose to use for bicycle route
> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>
>
I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
city bikes with a few extra gears and
TING
Best,
--
Peter Elderson
Op wo 15 jan. 2020 om 22:54 schreef Paul Allen :
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 21:17, Mateusz Konieczny
> wrote:
>
> I would not consider disused=yes to be
>> deprecated for physical objects like
>> building, adits, quarries etc.
>>
>
/everyday cycling, ande the other way around.
I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
> Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <
>
Florimond Berthoux het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> Ok, you need examples :
> this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C
> this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling
>
> You don't need signpost to have a route.
I disagree. If there is nothing on the ground, there is no mappable route.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not
have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a
bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst :
> Jo
such detail. So I have no objection to
> there mapping, I will never use it nor map it.
>
>
> On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not
>> have to be exclusive or any particular type of roa
Sorry, but this is not a useful classification for bicycle routes in
Nederland.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op zo 12 jan. 2020 om 17:34 schreef Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:
> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 22:22, Peter Elderson a
> écrit :
> >
> > Florimond B
Andy Townsend :
> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
> >
> >> I think;
> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these
joost schouppe :
> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for
> driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France
Are these routes waymarked as special routes?
> ___
> Tagging mailing
together in a parent relation.
The roles in routes discussion would then apply, too.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 7 jan. 2020 om 20:52 schreef Marc Gemis :
> AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with
> https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I t
I get the impression that consensus and general adoption will not be
reached during my lifetime.
Good luck with it, I'm out!
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 11 mrt. 2020 om 12:13 schreef alan_gr :
> John Doe wrote
> > I don't understand why the critics of PTv2 seem to think stop
oute along the stops and other
waypoints.
Best, Peter Elderson
> Op 6 mrt. 2020 om 23:52 heeft Andrew Harvey het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>
> I think if people want to save the full route with way members, that should
> be allowed.
>
> If someone wants to do a first p
best serves their purpose.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op ma 9 mrt. 2020 om 12:50 schreef Paul Allen :
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 00:18, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
>> > editors would have to take similar precautions with nodes. Not
>> impossible, but it would take time
onstructive
feedback on the proposal in order to get to the basic starting role set we
can agree on.
Shoot!
Best, Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
.
As with osmc:symbol, it's not mapping for the renderer, but mapping for
rendering.
Implementation rule for the renderers: if exists osmc:name , else
.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:23 schreef Richard Fairhurst :
> Yves wrote:
> > Inevitably, the current situation is stained by the
ld be nice to have.
Just a quick fix of one problem for one target user group (renderers). Does no
harm to any other target user group. It does not force anyone to change the
processing, but benefits the ones that implement it.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 2 apr. 2020 om 23:02 schreef Richard
ave.
Just a quick fix of one problem for one target user group (renderers). Does
no harm to any other target user group. It does not force anyone to change
the processing, but benefits the ones that implement it.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 2 apr. 2020 om 23:02 schreef Richard Fairhurst :
> P
rt to remove them from existing name tags.
I was under the impression the note=* tag is for mapper's notes about the
object.
I would think the best tag for a descriptive text would be the
description=* tag.
Question about the ref=* tag: should a ref be something visible along the
route?
--
.
Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
of routes by name, even though the names
contain hyphens, comma's, colons and round brackets.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op zo 29 mrt. 2020 om 22:29 schreef Richard Fairhurst :
> Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> > These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a
> > tag that expl
t when I remove the names and refs, they
disappear from those maps.
Best, Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Sorry if this appears twice - I got a bounce message first time.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:50 schreef Peter Elderson :
> Suggestion for rendering:
>
> What about osmc:name=*
>
> I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol.
>
> Defi
How is this access preference indicated?
(If it's by speed, I wouldn't be allowed even when running... yesterday I
barely managed 6,7 Kmph on a trail run).
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 1 mei 2020 om 22:38 schreef Mike Thompson :
> Hello,
>
> We have a trail [0] around here where walki
Thanks for explaining why my android phone says I am at +38m (+/- 3) in my
backyard when in fact it is at Dutch sea level -4.4m.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op ma 4 mei 2020 om 02:39 schreef Greg Troxel :
> Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
>
> > I’m asking for comments on
> https://wiki.op
If you know the elevation in one system, can the elevation the other
systems be derived from that?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 4 mei 2020 om 20:05 schreef Mark Wagner :
> On Sun, 3 May 2020 14:16:09 +0200
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >
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 renderin
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
e relation editor even remotely capable of what the
JOSM relation editor can do, I would certainly prefer that. It would not
have to be built into ID. Editing routes "any time, any place" without
having to carry a laptop around would be a step forward for me.
is a POC.
(As long as the directions are held as separate routes. The
backward/forward role system in routes is a ginormous PITA to me.)
Best, Peter Elderson
Op ma 23 mrt. 2020 om 11:56 schreef Andy Townsend :
> On 23/03/2020 10:38, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >
> > I am very happy to rep
ns with Id, let
alone hierarchies of relations.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op di 10 mrt. 2020 om 20:20 schreef Richard :
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:07:02PM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to
> be
> > re-rou
hazard then follows from the proximity.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 15:49 schreef :
> Hmm okay, convinced. I only hope noone else comes with that topic later
> again then, but to me it's ok.
>
> -- Lukas
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 14:15 Uhr
> *Von:* &q
,
because there is no pause between the pieces.
I would tag the tower, not the carillion.I bet carillion lovers have their
own lists of carillions with locations and attributes, to be displayed as a
layer over a nice and clean OSM map.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 17:58 schreef Colin
can be
applied.
As usual with measures, unit may follow the value, where m is default.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 8 mei 2020 om 10:04 schreef Marc Gemis :
> > 2) Use ele:datum=unknown as a clue that the data is not that high
> > quality.
>
> or make that the def
ually complex, I know. We also have
fallen into the habit of (ab)using the name tag to indicate the
hierarchy and the roles. I would like to address that later as a separate
issue, unless somebody else beats me to it.
For now, let's concentrate on this basic role set.
THe RFC is open till at least
I think that is the general idea. It can be shown on the map and as object
info. WMT also uses the hierarchy in te information panel.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 14:52 schreef Daniel Westergren :
> Right. Naming conventions is a minor issue and not what this proposal is
>
vary a lot
but usually is about a POI, a viewpoint or something else worth the extra
miles.I hope the idea comes across now.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 21 mei 2020 om 06:41 schreef Andrew Harvey :
>
>
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
I will remove the black trail example, it is confusing because the
illustration does not show why it's wrong.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 21 mei 2020 om 06:42 schreef Andrew Harvey :
>
>
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The excl
Tomas Straupis:
> 2020-05-23, št, 04:51 Jarek Piórkowski rašė:
> > See also: not rendering roads or hamlets in very sparsely populated
> > areas because we have one map style which needs to accommodate central
> > European densities.
> OSM-Carto is a very well done DATA VISUALISATION. It is
an
ordering and sorting mechanism.
Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in international
(super)routes.
Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a proper
tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
Peter Elderson
Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
Route!
Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson
> wrote:
>
>> I am trying
e operator.
The tag could be applied to all officially segmented routes with section
refs.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op zo 24 mei 2020 om 10:18 schreef s8evq :
> First example:
>
> Superrelation GR5 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4580796)
> consists of the following 8 relation members
Sounds like rendering for the mapper...don't know if that's as bad as the
other way around
Op vr 22 mei 2020 om 16:07 schreef Andrew Harvey :
>
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> May 22, 2020, 13:55 by
.
I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 23 mei 2020 om 19:59 schreef Jo :
> oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write
> superroute.
>
> Jo
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Yves
YM routes tagged as superroute? Or all routes with relation members?
Peter Elderson
Op za 23 mei 2020 om 21:08 schreef Jo :
> By the way, superroute relations in JOSM now show continuity correctly if
> the last node of the last way is the same as the first node of the first
> w
, which in turn will help mappers to do the right thing.
Peter Elderson
Op za 23 mei 2020 om 20:29 schreef Kevin Kenny :
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:46 PM Yves wrote:
> > While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> number, whick look like a reference, I woul
with very different
attrbutes and tagging styles. But I think it does not hurt either. That
issue can be addressed later!
Peter Elderson
Op za 23 mei 2020 om 20:47 schreef Kevin Kenny :
> > For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers
> or refs that
s
variants are more important. But again, that's a different discussion.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 21 mei 2020 om 17:50 schreef Volker Schmidt :
>
>
>
> Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the
>> trail goes as part of a route, so in that ca
by the tags of the ways.
editors, QA-tools and datausers would have to handle the role.
It fits in nicely with the accepted roles for recreational routes,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roles_for_recreational_route_relations
Best, Peter Elderson
Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 11:26 schreef Francesco
True. In that case, a transfer relation in a superroute is necessary. Like
all the other roles: do not combine these roles on ways with with
forward/backward, use a relation instead.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 12:06 schreef Jo :
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I will create the s
I think the transfer section only needs the role transfer. The exact way of
transport there is tagged on the child relation which is a route in itself.
(type=route, route=*).
Peter Elderson
Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 13:11 schreef Jo :
> I was in a hurry to go and eat and forgot to
should appear in both routes involved.
*| transfer | Route section where a different mode of transport is
necessary, e.g. cable car transfer in a hikingh trail, train transfer in a
bicycle route, bus transfer through a tunnel. A transfer section is an
integral part of the route. |*
Best, Peter
combine this? Multiple roles are currently not defined.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 31 aug. 2020 om 08:16 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 31/8/20 8:25 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you.
> >
>
> Agreed
Jo:
> I added that it's not needed for ferries in the proposal on the wiki. It's
> alright if we have more than 1 way to do it and leave it up to the mapper
> to decide whether to map as a single route relation or split them and use a
> superroute relation.
>
Wouldn't this apply to other
rail
to be followed exactly. I don't think roles in fixed route relations will
solve the instant routing challenge!
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 09:53, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>> Jo:
>>
>>> I added that it's not needed for ferries in the proposal on the wiki.
>>> It's
701 - 800 of 991 matches
Mail list logo
