Operator or network tags are often quoted for this kind of network. However I
find it difficult not to wish for putting 'name=Boulder Valley Ranch Trails'
somewhere, and a relation seems a good candidate.
network:name=Boulder Valley Ranch Trails? But the network tag and its
acronyms values
2 Aug 2020, 09:25 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> An indication that all these things are maintained by one organization?
>>
>
>
> there is the operator tag for this. Don’t use relations where tags can
sent from a phone
> On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> An indication that all these things are maintained by one organization?
there is the operator tag for this. Don’t use relations where tags can do the
trick...
Cheers Martin
1 Aug 2020, 18:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:
> I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all the
> trails in a given park have been put into a single relation. Is this a
> recommended use for route relations?
>
"Trail is within park XYZ" is not valid use
of relation
2 Aug 2020, 07:14 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
>
> Le 1 août 2020 22:08:17 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
> >sent from a phone
>
>>> On 1. Aug 2020, at 20:48, Yves via talk wrote:
>>>
>>> This would be better joined in a site relation.
>>>
>>
>>
> >why should it? What’s
Le 1 août 2020 22:08:17 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 1. Aug 2020, at 20:48, Yves via talk wrote:
>>
>> This would be better joined in a site relation.
>
>
>why should it? What’s the benefit? How is this different to adding all roads
>of a village
On 2/8/20 6:08 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 1. Aug 2020, at 20:48, Yves via talk wrote:
This would be better joined in a site relation.
why should it? What’s the benefit?
An indication that all these things are maintained by one organization?
The question as to
sent from a phone
> On 1. Aug 2020, at 20:48, Yves via talk wrote:
>
> This would be better joined in a site relation.
why should it? What’s the benefit? How is this different to adding all roads of
a village into a site relation?
Cheers Martin
This would be better joined in a site relation.
Yves
Le 1 août 2020 18:20:27 GMT+02:00, Mike Thompson a écrit :
>I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all the
>trails in a given park have been put into a single relation. Is this a
>recommended use for route
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:24 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
> I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all
> the trails in a given park have been put into a single relation. Is this a
> recommended use for route relations?
>
Nope. It's wrong. Each route should have its
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> No
>
> Relations are not collections
>
Thanks! That is what I thought, but there are so many such relations in
this area that I thought I better check. I'll wait for a few more opinions
to roll in, and if they are along the lines of
No
Relations are not collections
- Joseph Eisenberg
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:23 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
> I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all
> the trails in a given park have been put into a single relation. Is this a
> recommended use for route
I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all the
trails in a given park have been put into a single relation. Is this a
recommended use for route relations?
Mike
[0]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10962561
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8409089
13 matches
Mail list logo
