I can't answer the question for busrelations. For long hiking routes and walking node networks, relations containing relations are very important.
Without those, maintenance of long hiking routes becomes a p.i.t.b, sometimes near impossible. Rendering can be done without superroutes, just by rendering each piece separately. But datausers need to resolve the hierarchy. Waymarkedtrails does that nicely for long recreational routes: Just replace every member relation with its content, recursively. Works nicely- if it's only ways in the lowest level relations. I'm not sure if your case needs just rendering or also data use/routing/navigation. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 13 mrt. 2019 om 15:05 schreef Paul Allen <[email protected]>: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 13:29, Andy Townsend <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 13/03/2019 13:18, Paul Allen wrote: >> > I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the >> > consensus on superroutes? >> >> In what context are you asking the question? I can think of examples >> where the answer would be "a really bad idea" and others where the >> answer would be "essential; there's really no other sensible way to have >> that data in OSM". >> > > That's more positive than I expected: they're not always on a par with > eating babies but the use > has to be justifiable. > > Can I get the data into OSM without a superroute? Sure. Is that data > useful without a superroute? > Not so much. It is this bus route: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8592409#map=14/52.0860/-4.6644 > That is incomplete and has some omissions and errors. I really ought to > fix it, but I had > this thought about superroutes and realized if I fixed and then found out > I could use a > superroute I'd later have to rework a few things. > > It's a circular. It starts at what can loosely be called the bus > station. It does what can loosely > be called a hairy circular route to return to the bus station. The route > then continues on a side > trip and eventually returns to the bus station, completing the "circle." > > There are places where the bus goes into a dead-end and gets out by > reversing into a side > junction. This differs from similar manoeuvres at a terminus of a > non-circular route because > passengers are on board. It does a loop-the-loop. It appears to do a > figure-8 but actually > there are other side-trips that mean it really isn't. > > One problem that I don't see a solution for in PTV1, PTV2 or "we don't tag > it PTV3" is a stop > that is ignored on the first pass but comes into play on the second pass. > The bus starts at > the bus station A, passes through nodes B, C and D and turns right at D to > E. On this pass > through C it ignores the bus stop there. After it's gone through the > alphabet back to A, it > again goes through B, C and D but this time turns left to alpha, beta, > etc. On this pass it > does stop at C. Piling all the stops into the relation may lead the > routers to conclude that > you can wait at the stop C to get directly to E when you can't (but you > can get on at C to take > a detour through the greek alphabet and eventually get to E because it's a > circular). > > Splitting it into route segments would fix the problem with the stop at > C. On one segment it isn't > a listed stop. On another segment it is. > > Splitting it into route segments would also make it clearer what happens > in the loop-the-loop > and the figure-of-8 in the town centre, if the splits are chosen > judiciously. If I'm really clever > I can find splits that make the variant routes fit in nicely, too. You > think that route is insane? > Wait until I add the variants. > > Best of all, I could pull these into umap. It would then be possible to > display route segments > in turn to see where the bus goes rather than trying to puzzle it out from > the overall route. Yes, > if you're very familiar with OSM you can puzzle it out from the relation, > but most people can't do > that (and I find it difficult, even with knowledge of how the route runs). > > So, good idea, bad idea, or should I stick to eating babies as that would > be more socially > acceptable? > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
