On 15/08/19 22:58, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 15/08/2019 10:56, Peter Elderson wrote:
... So the lowest level always contains only ways, the higher level
contains only relations.
Please don't make things more complicated than they need to be. Most
hiking routes are just a single relation and are best left that way.
Agreed for simple routes of, say, < 300 members.
Where the route has well over 300 members it becomes easier to maintain
it if it is split up into smaller segments and then has a higher level
relation to combine them.
The ways in the main relation should form one continuous sorted
(sortable) route,
No. Don't assume that route ways are sorted in OSM as they usually
aren't.
I have been sorting 'local' ones near me so they are processed correctly
by Way Marked Trails.
which data users can extract or link to for navigation or planner
software.
Pretty much irrelevant. As long as the data's there, software can
figure it out.
Note that rendering routes is not that critical,
This depends entirely on the use case. As an example, it is for me.
And Way Market Trails and probably others.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
