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

[Peter Elderson]

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 out how
> to do that...).
>
> See
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
>
> and a real example:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Lines_management=1994346=1994343
>
> if you have problems - which part of instructions is unclear?
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Lines_management=1994346=1994343

if you have problems - which part of instructions is unclear?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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 discuss a
solution first, than see the issue as comment in a no or abstain vote!

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 13:33 schreef Peter Elderson :

> 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 the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.
>
> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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
> those unfamiliar.
>

With route signs, you often can't tell what it is from one post. One post
is never a route, you always need extra information. In Nederland, many
routes have exactly the same symbol without further information. They show
the names only when they cross each other. If you're lucky!

Signboard
> http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_GNW-sign-on-the-Lyrebird-Trail.jpg
>

Looks like the trails run together for a while?

There are signboards indicating ways to the Great North Walk ..
> unfortunately labeled 'Great North Walk' leaving off the 'To the' so
> leading to miss-tagging of these paths/tracks - they are 'approach'
> paths/tracks/roads.
>

 In the role proposal, such a "to the ..." sign found on one trail and
pointing to another trail, would indicate a "connection" role. Otherwise an
"approach" role could be assigned.

If it is a sign pointing out the way from a PT station, parking lot or
mountain cabin, I would probably consider it an approach belonging to the
route. If it's just a sign on the road pointing to the nearby trail,
probably not worth mapping. But that's up to the mapper who knows the
territory. And often I google what the operator says.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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 
those unfamiliar.


Signboard 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_GNW-sign-on-the-Lyrebird-Trail.jpg


Register 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_GNW-walkers-register.jpg


There are signboards indicating ways to the Great North Walk .. 
unfortunately labeled 'Great North Walk' leaving off the 'To the' so 
leading to miss-tagging of these paths/tracks - they are 'approach' 
paths/tracks/roads.



On 21/5/20 11:34 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:
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 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, and cairns above the
tree line.

Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.


My 2p from England:

I suspect it'd vary around the world but I'd certainly say "that
trail is signposted" if all there was was a characteristic paint
blaze that "everyone recognises" as matching a particular trail.

Best Regards,

Andy



_



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

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

[Warin]

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, for our post-corona 
hiking and biking season?) :)

For the moment, I think it has no impact on this proposal.



+1. Leave nodes out of this proposal. Let us get the roles for ways done.


Discussions on nodes (guideposts, maps, signposts etc) can be left for 
later.




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

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

[Peter Elderson]

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?) :)
For the moment, I think it has no impact on this proposal.

I know that from a routing perspective, membership of the route relation
(any route relation for the transport mode) counts the most. Hikers tend to
have a different point of view, where the predefined named route and its
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 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
> trail that someone has marked as a  hiking trail. If I persist and follow
> the trail, finding more and more of these blazes I will, in most case
> encounter a signpost  or guidepost that tells me more about the trail
> (name, ref, destination, ...)
> 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
> The only mention in the wiki is this one:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Wandern#In_die_Relation_aufnehmen
>
> In Italy the Club Alpino Italiano has recently started a collaboration
> with the OSM community (under the "roof" of the Italian Wikimedia
> association) that aims at transferring the 50k km trail network of the Club
> into OSM. Part of this is the use of hiking relations and the guideposts
> will be inserted in the hiking route relations. Details are documented on
> the wiki page CAI  (in Italian).
>
> The new roles in the proposal do not bother me too much. I am not against
> them, but I do not see any great benefit in having them. As an end.user, I
> regularly plan (cycling) tours using various route planning tools (who
> typically give preference to cycling routes), but in that context it does
> not matter what role a particular part of relation has, the only important
> thing is whether a way is part of a route or not.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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


I agree that it is useful to add them, adding a role seems optional as long as 
the tagging makes it clear that these are guideposts and trail marks (the 
latter are a bit more disputed, but I’d not reject them, they are similar to 
guideposts).

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

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

[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 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
trail that someone has marked as a  hiking trail. If I persist and follow
the trail, finding more and more of these blazes I will, in most case
encounter a signpost  or guidepost that tells me more about the trail
(name, ref, destination, ...)
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
The only mention in the wiki is this one:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Wandern#In_die_Relation_aufnehmen

In Italy the Club Alpino Italiano has recently started a collaboration with
the OSM community (under the "roof" of the Italian Wikimedia association)
that aims at transferring the 50k km trail network of the Club into OSM.
Part of this is the use of hiking relations and the guideposts will be
inserted in the hiking route relations. Details are documented on the wiki
page CAI  (in Italian).

The new roles in the proposal do not bother me too much. I am not against
them, but I do not see any great benefit in having them. As an end.user, I
regularly plan (cycling) tours using various route planning tools (who
typically give preference to cycling routes), but in that context it does
not matter what role a particular part of relation has, the only important
thing is whether a way is part of a route or not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 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 do 21 mei 2020 om 16:03 schreef Andrew Harvey <> 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 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 thought that paint blazes,
>>> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
>>> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
>>> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>>>
>>> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
>>> a trail?
>>>
>>
>> To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for walking 
>> and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing or 
>> following an animal trail.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Though there was another thread recently about what constituents a route vs 
>> just a named path..
>> ___
>>  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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

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 do 21 mei 2020 om 16:03 schreef Andrew Harvey :

>
>
> 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
>> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>>
>> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
>> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
>> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
>> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>>
>> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
>> a trail?
>>
>
> To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for
> walking and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing
> or following an animal trail.
>
> 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.
>
> Though there was another thread recently about what constituents a route
> vs just a named path..
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 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 thought that paint blazes,
>> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
>> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
>> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>>
>> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
>> a trail?
>>
>
> To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for walking 
> and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing or 
> following an animal trail.
>
> 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.
>
In Poland there is a standard method for hiking at least some types of 
recreational routes.

For example
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlak_turystyczny#/media/Plik:CzerwonySzlakTurystyczny.jpg
is certainly marking hiking walking route (red bar within white bars means that 
it is
a red hiking trail).

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlak_turystyczny#/media/Plik:Tourist_trails_pl01.jpg
is marking (from top) skiing route, red horse trail (within orange bars), and 
three hiking
walking routes (within white bars) - blue route, yellow route and black route.

Additional information boards, signs, guideposts, cairns, signs, wooden poles 
etc
may be present but such markings as on photos 
are completely sufficient to mark it as a recreational route.


> 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.
>
Except rare cases of imports you need to anyway travel entire route to map it 
in OSM.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Andrew Harvey]

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
> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>
> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>
> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
> a trail?
>

To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for
walking and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing
or following an animal trail.

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.

Though there was another thread recently about what constituents a route vs
just a named path..
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 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, and cairns above the tree line.
>
> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>
> My 2p from England:
>
> I suspect it'd vary around the world but I'd certainly say "that trail is
> signposted" if all there was was a characteristic paint blaze that
> "everyone recognises" as matching a particular trail.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Andy Townsend]

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, and cairns above the tree line.

Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.


My 2p from England:

I suspect it'd vary around the world but I'd certainly say "that trail 
is signposted" if all there was was a characteristic paint blaze that 
"everyone recognises" as matching a particular trail.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

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

[Peter Elderson]

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 Elderson


Op do 21 mei 2020 om 14:49 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
>
>
> 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 thought that paint blazes,
> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>
> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
> a trail?
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 thought that paint blazes,
guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.

Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
a trail?

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 is not? Is that is going to be
>> difficult to explain in a simple way?
>
> It should depend if it's signposted as part of the route or not, since this 
> tagging only applies to signposted routes. If there is an excursion or 
> alternative route that isn't signposted as part of the route then it 
> shouldn't be included in the relation.

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.

And it's still possible to waymark a side trail as _associated_ with
the main route. The Appalachian Trail, for instance, is marked with a
2x6 inch vertical white bar. Side trails that 'belong' to it are
marked wtih the same 2x6 inch vertical bar, only in blue. The 'belongs
to' association is a judgment call. I know of only one maintaining
club in my broad area that publishes a list, and that's for their
quirky 'hiked the Long Path from side to side' award:
https://www.greenmountainclub.org/the-long-trail/side-to-side/

The excursion may be marked generically, but still be understood to
'belong to' the trail that it leaves. On many preserves around here
(which use a more sophisticated waymarking system than the simple
paint blazes), side trails to campsites and latrines are marked with
little (~10 cm) marker disks bearing the appropriate icon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/10282365273

Given the statement of purpose, the locals will know what to do, and
the non-locals will argue here on the tagging list about whether a
'properly' tagged object must follow their cultural assumptions.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

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

[Yves]

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 is accepted, you can have a look at taginfo and reach out to 
those route=* wiki page to inform that the new accepted proposal may be of 
interest. 

Le 20 mai 2020 18:27:24 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson  a écrit 
:
>Thanks, I see that route=piste was approved and has its own role
>definition. Strangely enough, the tag is applied more often to ways
>then to
>relations, that does not seem to fit in the tag definition.
>
>I meant the roles proposal to be generic, but I'll include the
>route=piste
>relation as an exception.  Any other exceptions?
>
>Peter Elderson
>
>
>Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 17:37 schreef Yves :
>
>> "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
>> of other recreational routes. I don't see in the current proposal any
>> showstopper, but who knows?
>> Once accepted, it will be easy enough to extend to other route=*
>relations
>> as fit.
>> Yves
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 20 mai 2020 13:33:26 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson
> a
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> 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 the talk page and/or here.  Please note
>that
>>> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and
>documented.
>>>
>>> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>>>
>>> Best, Peter Elderson
>>>
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about
>> and clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns
>> (as such complicated routes are highly unusual in my region)
>>
>
> Hummm...
>
>
> 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 simple way?
>
Black trail in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Dead_end_hiking_route.png is
a completely separate trail.

If it would be signed as a part of green trail, then it ways would get 
"excursion" roie.
But as it is a separate one its ways are having either blank or "main" role.

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

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

[Peter Elderson]

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 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 simple way?
>>
>
> It should depend if it's signposted as part of the route or not, since
> this tagging only applies to signposted routes. If there is an excursion or
> alternative route that isn't signposted as part of the route then it
> shouldn't be included in the relation.
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

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 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:
>
>> 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 simple single track that go to
>> the 'point of interest' and return is along the same track.
>>
>>
>> Suggest?
>>
>> "A signposted track which leads to one or more point/s of interests. The
>> return maybe along the same track or a different track provided it
>> rejoins very close to point where the main track was left. Examples are
>> tracks that lead to a view, drinking water, a campsite, a toilet."
>>
>> More verbose, but there it is.
>>
>
> Also discussed at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
>  where
> I suggested not defining it as visiting a point of interest, but rather by
> the topology alone. Otherwise people could confuse an alternate route which
> visits POIs as an excursion, or not think it's an excursion just because it
> doesn't visit a POI.
>
> I read "rejoins at roughly the same point" as including returning at
> exactly the same point, ie. meaning anywhere within a rough radius
> including the point itself. You could for clarity say "which rejoins at
> either the same point or roughly the same point where it left".
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Andrew Harvey]

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 simple way?
>

It should depend if it's signposted as part of the route or not, since this
tagging only applies to signposted routes. If there is an excursion or
alternative route that isn't signposted as part of the route then it
shouldn't be included in the relation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Andrew Harvey]

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 'rejoins' at exactly the same point.
>
> Most of the ones I have come across are simple single track that go to
> the 'point of interest' and return is along the same track.
>
>
> Suggest?
>
> "A signposted track which leads to one or more point/s of interests. The
> return maybe along the same track or a different track provided it
> rejoins very close to point where the main track was left. Examples are
> tracks that lead to a view, drinking water, a campsite, a toilet."
>
> More verbose, but there it is.
>

Also discussed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
where
I suggested not defining it as visiting a point of interest, but rather by
the topology alone. Otherwise people could confuse an alternate route which
visits POIs as an excursion, or not think it's an excursion just because it
doesn't visit a POI.

I read "rejoins at roughly the same point" as including returning at
exactly the same point, ie. meaning anywhere within a rough radius
including the point itself. You could for clarity say "which rejoins at
either the same point or roughly the same point where it left".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns
(as such complicated routes are highly unusual in my region)



Hummm...


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 simple way?




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

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

[Warin]

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 simple single track that go to 
the 'point of interest' and return is along the same track.



Suggest?

"A signposted track which leads to one or more point/s of interests. The 
return maybe along the same track or a different track provided it 
rejoins very close to point where the main track was left. Examples are 
tracks that lead to a view, drinking water, a campsite, a toilet."


More verbose, but there it is.




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

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

[Yves]

"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 of other 
recreational routes. I don't see in the current proposal any showstopper, but 
who knows? 
Once accepted, it will be easy enough to extend to other route=* relations as 
fit. 
Yves 



Le 20 mai 2020 13:33:26 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson  a écrit 
:
>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 the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
>this
>proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.
>
>Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>
>Best, Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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.
>
> 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" etc. if
> those roles are set.
>
> /Daniel
>
>
> Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 14:35 skrev Peter Elderson :
>
>> 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 " [name] - main", "
>>> [name] - variation X", " [name] - connection" etc. If all routes are named
>>> in a similar way, it will be much easier to distinguish the relation levels
>>> from each other, particularly for users who don't know anything about
>>> relations.
>>>
>>
>> There are no fixed hierarchy levels! One can try to fix a
>> hierarchy convention in one country for one recreational transport mode,
>> but that convention probably would not hold for other countries/regions and
>> for other modes of transport.
>>
>> Hiking routes in Nederland are unusually 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 2020-06-04, then I hope to start the RFV.
>>
>>  Best, Peter Elderson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>> Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 13:36 skrev Peter Elderson :
>>>
 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 the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
 this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.

 Thanks for helping to finally get this done!

 Best, 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
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 complicated routes are highly unusual in my region)

May 20, 2020, 13:33 by pelder...@gmail.com:

> Please review and comment on this proposal:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles>
>   
>
>

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

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

[Daniel Westergren]

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" etc. if those
roles are set.

/Daniel


Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 14:35 skrev Peter Elderson :

> 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 " [name] - main", "
>> [name] - variation X", " [name] - connection" etc. If all routes are named
>> in a similar way, it will be much easier to distinguish the relation levels
>> from each other, particularly for users who don't know anything about
>> relations.
>>
>
> There are no fixed hierarchy levels! One can try to fix a
> hierarchy convention in one country for one recreational transport mode,
> but that convention probably would not hold for other countries/regions and
> for other modes of transport.
>
> Hiking routes in Nederland are unusually 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 2020-06-04, then I hope to start the RFV.
>
>  Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
>
>
>>
> Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 13:36 skrev Peter Elderson :
>>
>>> 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 the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
>>> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.
>>>
>>> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>>>
>>> Best, 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
>>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

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 " [name] - main", "
> [name] - variation X", " [name] - connection" etc. If all routes are named
> in a similar way, it will be much easier to distinguish the relation levels
> from each other, particularly for users who don't know anything about
> relations.
>

There are no fixed hierarchy levels! One can try to fix a
hierarchy convention in one country for one recreational transport mode,
but that convention probably would not hold for other countries/regions and
for other modes of transport.

Hiking routes in Nederland are unusually 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 2020-06-04, then I hope to start the RFV.

 Best, Peter Elderson




>
Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 13:36 skrev Peter Elderson :
>
>> 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 the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
>> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.
>>
>> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>>
>> Best, 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Daniel Westergren]

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
the same relation.

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 " [name] - main", "
[name] - variation X", " [name] - connection" etc. If all routes are named
in a similar way, it will be much easier to distinguish the relation levels
from each other, particularly for users who don't know anything about
relations.

Apart from that, I'm looking forward to go through Swedish routes to tag
them according to these role values.

/Daniel


Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 13:36 skrev Peter Elderson :

> 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 the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.
>
> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>
> Best, 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