I totally agree, Andy. So yes, if someone has tagged the relation with an operator and in reality, there are different operators (or none) for some parts of the route, those parts should have tags to indicate the change.
My illustrative case involves a pipeline that (AFAIK) has only one operator (oops, owner) so it's not the same situaiton. But don't hold me to specifics. I'm trying to illustrate a point and my choice of tag and value to do it may have been wrong. I just checked Wikipedia and the pipeline is owned by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company so please substitute owner for operator just for the purposes of the illustration. At any rate, using my reasoning, if an operator or owner tag doesn't apply to the route as a whole, it should appear on the individual ways and not in the relation. However, for the TAPS, such items as owner apply to the entire route, just as do Wikidata and Wikipedia tags, substance, etc. IMO, those tags belong on the relation and are not necessary on the individual ways. Best, Dave On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to > > every member of the relation. > > No. Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or > it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may > also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the > footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
