Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Thanks, I will have a go. Probably it's not that hard. Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 1 jun. 2020 om 11:49 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > > Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com: > > > Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com: > > Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how to > do that...). > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting and a real example:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how to do that...). I would like to invite any one who still has comments or doubts which might cause a no or abstain vote, to comment here or on the talk page. If anything serious arises, I would rather postpone the vote and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Warin: > Local to me the 'Great North Walk' is signposted in many different ways. > > e.g. > Post with directional arrows > http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_Looking-into-Mulbinga-Street.jpg > Some of these posts have no name plate so those may not be recognized by

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Local to me the 'Great North Walk' is signposted in many different ways. e.g. Post with directional arrows http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_Looking-into-Mulbinga-Street.jpg Some of these posts have no name plate so those may not be recognized by those

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On 22/5/20 3:20 am, Peter Elderson wrote: Nodes with roles in the route relation deserve another proposal to make it "official". The CAI-project sounds promising, I will look into it once this business is done! My wife is learning Italian, so maybe she can even translate the text (into Dutch,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Nodes with roles in the route relation deserve another proposal to make it "official". The CAI-project sounds promising, I will look into it once this business is done! My wife is learning Italian, so maybe she can even translate the text (into Dutch, for our post-corona hiking and biking season?)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

sent from a phone > On 21. May 2020, at 17:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > This leads me to what I really wanted to say: > Trail route relations (and cycling route relations) could or should (?) > include the guideposts, and for that purpose we need a role for these nodes: > role=guidepost

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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 case without knowing the exact > route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route. > > A series of trail blazes or way marks tells me that I most likely on a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Yes, the requirements are the same. The important part is that this proposal is not changing what can be included in the route relation, and sections that are not part of a route still cannot be included in it. May 21, 2020, 16:38 by pelder...@gmail.com: > Is it ok for you to leave that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Is it ok for you to leave that discussion out of this proposal? Let's say: if it is decided that there is a route with additional sections verifiably belonging to the route, this role-set can be used in the route relation to indicate the purpose of the special sections. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 16:00 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by >> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > > It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; > some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

This wikipedia "Trail blazing" article (which takes trailblazed and wayarked as meaning the same thing), has a nice picture collection of way markings. On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:22, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in the woods, guideposts in the fields,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

To my understanding, signposting is one way of waymarking. I've now changed the text to "signposted or otherwise waymarked". Hope that's English? I checked the dictionary for the terms, they are correct, I think, but it didn't mention what people actually call it around the globe. Best, Peter

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; > some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in > the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line. > Not a native speaker, but I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Yeah, I've seen the pattern of route=piste for ways, I guess it is a case of newbies over-gardening. Don't specifically exclude route=piste from your proposal: my point was to completely omit 'other recreational routes' if you don't master them to avoid unnecessary discussion. When the proposal

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 04:34 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

"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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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"

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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 "

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

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