Re: [Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

[Peter Elderson]

I'm also not sure if it's correct to add nodes to a walking or cycling
route. There is one reference on a Dutch wiki page that you can, to mark
start/stop places on a route, but I think JOSM rejects that.

Also found a remark that you can or should add nodes to hiking superroutes
at connecting points (e.g. at a border), that's not correct is it?

2018-05-08 8:04 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson :

> We have trails with their own names, serving as part of a larger
> (branched) trail with another name. The parts may have different operators.
> Alternative sections and loops are fairly common. Sometimes a section is
> closed for part of the year (birds nesting and stuff) so you .need to take
> the long way around.
> Usually they share symbol, operator, reference, name, website and
> booklets. And bloody bad gpx-tracks, usually made before the route was
> actually rolled out..
> If grouping is easy, well documented and well handled by apps, I would
> prefer to use grouped routes for the common tags. E.g. our "Marskramerpad"
> consists of 20 sections of the size (300 ways max) recommended by the wiki.
> The whole thing is the dutch section of a european route. For that, the
> Marskramerpad relation has copy with exactly the same parts, but tagged as
> international walking network, withe the euaropean names and tags.  That
> one is in turn part of the european (super)route.
>
> Maybe this is how it should be done, it works on waymarked trails, but I
> do not like the duplication of the dutch section.
>
> I don't care whether the relation type=route or superroute, but I care
> about consistency, about documenting a consensus solution, and about not
> having to re-invent the wheel.
>
> Back to the original question: I take it that there is indeed no 'best
> practice' wiki about how to do this?
>
> 2018-05-08 6:38 GMT+02:00 Yves :
>
>> Could be other relations named "Partridge Track Loop 1" etc.
>> If a user search for Partridge Track, they'll be able to find them. What
>> do they share with the main route? The name, the operator? The signs?
>> There's maybe no need to group them in another relation.
>> Yves
>>
>> Le 8 mai 2018 02:53:43 GMT+02:00, Kevin Kenny <
>> kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Peter Elderson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I map everything as long as it’s waymarked. If a variant is waymarked
 and named, it belongs to the route. It is the hierarchy I am not sure how
 to tag exactly. I see type=route in th Netherlands and type=superroute in
 Germany for the same type of hierarchy, and both seem to display fine on
 waymarkedtrails. What is a type=superroute needed for then?

>>>
>>>  It appears to be for cases like https://www.openstreetmap.org/
>>> relation/919642 - where I suspect that I got the tagging Not Entirely
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> I broke the route into segments at county boundaries because the whole
>>> thing had far too many ways to be manageable. In particular, it was
>>> crashing JOSM at the time, and I switched to Meerkartor briefly to break it
>>> up. JOSM has since been fixed. It appears that the Wiki
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute suggests
>>> 'superroute' for this type of object. I've not tagged the above relation
>>> thus, because JOSM complains that 'superroute' is an unknown relation type,
>>> and Waymarked Trails is happy with a 'type=route' superrelation containing
>>> subrelations for the sections.
>>>
>>> 'type=superroute' is not obviously applicable to alternatives, bypasses,
>>> spurs, and whatnot - it appears that the route analyzer and Waymarked
>>> Trails still want the route to be continuous. The couple that I've
>>> encountered, I've tagged as separate routes. I have no idea what to do with
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600 where the whole thing is
>>> waymarked as 'Partridge Path' with occasional signage identifying 'Loop 1',
>>> 'Loop 2', and 'Loop 3'. I, too, am interested in hearing suggestions about
>>> how to deal with this sort of beast.
>>>
>>
>> Yves
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

[Peter Elderson]

We have trails with their own names, serving as part of a larger (branched)
trail with another name. The parts may have different operators.
Alternative sections and loops are fairly common. Sometimes a section is
closed for part of the year (birds nesting and stuff) so you .need to take
the long way around.
Usually they share symbol, operator, reference, name, website and booklets.
And bloody bad gpx-tracks, usually made before the route was actually
rolled out..
If grouping is easy, well documented and well handled by apps, I would
prefer to use grouped routes for the common tags. E.g. our "Marskramerpad"
consists of 20 sections of the size (300 ways max) recommended by the wiki.
The whole thing is the dutch section of a european route. For that, the
Marskramerpad relation has copy with exactly the same parts, but tagged as
international walking network, withe the euaropean names and tags.  That
one is in turn part of the european (super)route.

Maybe this is how it should be done, it works on waymarked trails, but I do
not like the duplication of the dutch section.

I don't care whether the relation type=route or superroute, but I care
about consistency, about documenting a consensus solution, and about not
having to re-invent the wheel.

Back to the original question: I take it that there is indeed no 'best
practice' wiki about how to do this?

2018-05-08 6:38 GMT+02:00 Yves :

> Could be other relations named "Partridge Track Loop 1" etc.
> If a user search for Partridge Track, they'll be able to find them. What
> do they share with the main route? The name, the operator? The signs?
> There's maybe no need to group them in another relation.
> Yves
>
> Le 8 mai 2018 02:53:43 GMT+02:00, Kevin Kenny 
> a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I map everything as long as it’s waymarked. If a variant is waymarked
>>> and named, it belongs to the route. It is the hierarchy I am not sure how
>>> to tag exactly. I see type=route in th Netherlands and type=superroute in
>>> Germany for the same type of hierarchy, and both seem to display fine on
>>> waymarkedtrails. What is a type=superroute needed for then?
>>>
>>
>>  It appears to be for cases like https://www.openstreetmap.org/
>> relation/919642 - where I suspect that I got the tagging Not Entirely
>> Right.
>>
>> I broke the route into segments at county boundaries because the whole
>> thing had far too many ways to be manageable. In particular, it was
>> crashing JOSM at the time, and I switched to Meerkartor briefly to break it
>> up. JOSM has since been fixed. It appears that the Wiki
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute suggests
>> 'superroute' for this type of object. I've not tagged the above relation
>> thus, because JOSM complains that 'superroute' is an unknown relation type,
>> and Waymarked Trails is happy with a 'type=route' superrelation containing
>> subrelations for the sections.
>>
>> 'type=superroute' is not obviously applicable to alternatives, bypasses,
>> spurs, and whatnot - it appears that the route analyzer and Waymarked
>> Trails still want the route to be continuous. The couple that I've
>> encountered, I've tagged as separate routes. I have no idea what to do with
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600 where the whole thing is
>> waymarked as 'Partridge Path' with occasional signage identifying 'Loop 1',
>> 'Loop 2', and 'Loop 3'. I, too, am interested in hearing suggestions about
>> how to deal with this sort of beast.
>>
>
> Yves
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

[Yves]

Could be other relations named "Partridge Track Loop 1" etc.
If a user search for Partridge Track, they'll be able to find them. What do 
they share with the main route? The name, the operator? The signs? There's 
maybe no need to group them in another relation.
Yves 

Le 8 mai 2018 02:53:43 GMT+02:00, Kevin Kenny  a 
écrit :
>On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Peter Elderson 
>wrote:
>
>> I map everything as long as it’s waymarked. If a variant is waymarked
>and
>> named, it belongs to the route. It is the hierarchy I am not sure how
>to
>> tag exactly. I see type=route in th Netherlands and type=superroute
>in
>> Germany for the same type of hierarchy, and both seem to display fine
>on
>> waymarkedtrails. What is a type=superroute needed for then?
>>
>
> It appears to be for cases like
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 - where I suspect that I
>got
>the tagging Not Entirely Right.
>
>I broke the route into segments at county boundaries because the whole
>thing had far too many ways to be manageable. In particular, it was
>crashing JOSM at the time, and I switched to Meerkartor briefly to
>break it
>up. JOSM has since been fixed. It appears that the Wiki
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute suggests
>'superroute' for this type of object. I've not tagged the above
>relation
>thus, because JOSM complains that 'superroute' is an unknown relation
>type,
>and Waymarked Trails is happy with a 'type=route' superrelation
>containing
>subrelations for the sections.
>
>'type=superroute' is not obviously applicable to alternatives,
>bypasses,
>spurs, and whatnot - it appears that the route analyzer and Waymarked
>Trails still want the route to be continuous. The couple that I've
>encountered, I've tagged as separate routes. I have no idea what to do
>with
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600 where the whole thing is
>waymarked as 'Partridge Path' with occasional signage identifying 'Loop
>1',
>'Loop 2', and 'Loop 3'. I, too, am interested in hearing suggestions
>about
>how to deal with this sort of beast.

Yves___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> I map everything as long as it’s waymarked. If a variant is waymarked and
> named, it belongs to the route. It is the hierarchy I am not sure how to
> tag exactly. I see type=route in th Netherlands and type=superroute in
> Germany for the same type of hierarchy, and both seem to display fine on
> waymarkedtrails. What is a type=superroute needed for then?
>

 It appears to be for cases like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 - where I suspect that I got
the tagging Not Entirely Right.

I broke the route into segments at county boundaries because the whole
thing had far too many ways to be manageable. In particular, it was
crashing JOSM at the time, and I switched to Meerkartor briefly to break it
up. JOSM has since been fixed. It appears that the Wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute suggests
'superroute' for this type of object. I've not tagged the above relation
thus, because JOSM complains that 'superroute' is an unknown relation type,
and Waymarked Trails is happy with a 'type=route' superrelation containing
subrelations for the sections.

'type=superroute' is not obviously applicable to alternatives, bypasses,
spurs, and whatnot - it appears that the route analyzer and Waymarked
Trails still want the route to be continuous. The couple that I've
encountered, I've tagged as separate routes. I have no idea what to do with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600 where the whole thing is
waymarked as 'Partridge Path' with occasional signage identifying 'Loop 1',
'Loop 2', and 'Loop 3'. I, too, am interested in hearing suggestions about
how to deal with this sort of beast.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

[Peter Elderson]

I map everything as long as it’s waymarked. If a variant is waymarked and 
named, it belongs to the route. It is the hierarchy I am not sure how to tag 
exactly. I see type=route in th Netherlands and type=superroute in Germany for 
the same type of hierarchy, and both seem to display fine on waymarkedtrails. 
What is a type=superroute needed for then?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 7 mei 2018 om 23:48 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> Even local hiking routes can have variations in starting and stopping places 
> as well as route variations to accommodate things. 
> 
> I take the view that the 'normal' route is what I map. The different 
> start/stopping options lie along the route and can be accessed by those using 
> the route. Just like a bus route or a train route. 
> 
> The route variations I'm not certain of.
> 
> In any case .. I try to help the end users .. such as waymarkedtrails .. most 
> usefull to have the route correctly displayed there. 
> 
>> On 08/05/18 04:20, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I've been searching the wiki's for a good description of how to tag long 
>> hiking routes, particularly compound international routes with separate 
>> sections per country, where the national section is also a national path on 
>> its own which in turn consists of several (sometimes many) sections.
>> 
>> Directionality  is not a problem with hiking routes, but alternative routes 
>> and different starting routes are very common and have to be accommodated. 
>> 
>> I can found some thoughts about it under "relations", but not a clear and 
>> definite scheme how to do this. Is there a consensus and if so where can I 
>> find the thematical documentation? 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

[Warin]

Even local hiking routes can have variations in starting and stopping 
places as well as route variations to accommodate things.


I take the view that the 'normal' route is what I map. The different 
start/stopping options lie along the route and can be accessed by those 
using the route. Just like a bus route or a train route.


The route variations I'm not certain of.

In any case .. I try to help the end users .. such as waymarkedtrails .. 
most usefull to have the route correctly displayed there.


On 08/05/18 04:20, Peter Elderson wrote:
I've been searching the wiki's for a good description of how to tag 
long hiking routes, particularly compound international routes with 
separate sections per country, where the national section is also a 
national path on its own which in turn consists of several (sometimes 
many) sections.


Directionality  is not a problem with hiking routes, but alternative 
routes and different starting routes are very common and have to be 
accommodated.


I can found some thoughts about it under "relations", but not a clear 
and definite scheme how to do this. Is there a consensus and if so 
where can I find the thematical documentation?


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

[Peter Elderson]

I've been searching the wiki's for a good description of how to tag long
hiking routes, particularly compound international routes with separate
sections per country, where the national section is also a national path on
its own which in turn consists of several (sometimes many) sections.

Directionality  is not a problem with hiking routes, but alternative routes
and different starting routes are very common and have to be accommodated.

I can found some thoughts about it under "relations", but not a clear and
definite scheme how to do this. Is there a consensus and if so where can I
find the thematical documentation?

-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging