On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> 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
