"Applies to
All  and  part of a relation tagged withtype=route and route=hiking or
route=foot or route=bicycle or any other recreational route type."
I was thinking of route=piste, used for cross-country skiing or snowshoeing.
I'd better leave out this part unless discussed in the context
> does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and
its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry
or agriculture access?
The tag highway=track should be used for road which are primarily for
agricultural or forestry use.
It's also possible to use
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
> >
> > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or
> > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car
> > or emergency
Hello,
Just because a trail is wide enough to accommodate a four wheeled
vehicle does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and
its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry
or agriculture access?
Mike
___
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or
> footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or
> emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as
>
I think this is really great! I'm creating a site with Swedish routes for
potentially setting FKT's, Fastest Known Time. Getting the GPX file (as
well as distance and elevation) from a hiking route on Waymarked Trails is
usually problematic if all alternative routes, excursions etc. are part of
Thanks, Daniel!
Question: Will there be any naming conventions of the different levels in
> the hierarchy, to make it easier to know what relation you're actually
> looking at? I see in the example the parent relation is called "[name] -
> main route and variations", with child relations called "
Right. Naming conventions is a minor issue and not what this proposal is
about.
Still, if all hierarchy levels have the same name, it will be confusing for
users as to what's what. But maybe that's something that renderers also can
do, like Waymarked Trails can add "alternative", "connection"
Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal.
I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK
(but oif unwanted - feel free to revert)
At least for me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about
and clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns
(as such
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
> about.
On 20/5/20 10:49 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal.
I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK
(but oif unwanted - feel free to revert)
At least for me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about
and
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Thanks for doing this!
>
>
> The excursion description is
>
> "A signposted side track which rejoins at roughly the same point where
> it left, usually to visit a point of interest."
>
> That would exclude a track that
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main
> route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.
>
> Why is one excluded where the other is not? Is that is going to be
> difficult to explain in a
Hi,
Thanks for doing this!
The excursion description is
"A signposted side track which rejoins at roughly the same point where
it left, usually to visit a point of interest."
That would exclude a track that 'rejoins' at exactly the same point.
Most of the ones I have come across are
On 21/5/20 4:28 am, Mike Thompson wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or
footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a
I understand the concerns. I reworded:
excursion A signposted side track which rejoins the main track at or close
to the point where it left, e.g. to visit a place of interest. The
excursion is an optional addition to the main route.
It's topology and purpose at the same time, where purpose can
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 exclusion of the black trail
@s8evq
I will strike "alternate" from the proposal. Of course, data consumers
might still accept it if there is significant usage.
Then I will start the "official" proposal and voting process.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op ma 20 apr. 2020 om 09:47 schreef s8evq :
> I think this is a decent proposal.
Please review and comment on this proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
Definition: specification of role values for members of a recreational
route relation
The status has changed to proposed as of today
Comments can be placed on
19 matches
Mail list logo
