Well, I don't know really. For me either solutions are OK. But reading the discussion here, I think it seems like the topic of superrelations is controversial and most people would apply the newly proposed roles on ways within a relation....?
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:16:58 +0000, Michael Behrens <mfbehren...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > So you would also put a short excursion into a new relation and have this > as a seperate relation? > > Of couse, I see the point you want to make. This really makes sense when we > look at long alternative routes or approaches. > Would you then put all the relations into a superroute or still into new > routes? > > Michael > > Am Fr., 6. Dez. 2019 um 11:51 Uhr schrieb s8evq <s8...@runbox.com>: > > > Interesting proposal. > > > > I think it would be useful to also add to the proposal how we structure > > these hiking relations. > > > > For example: > > > > 1) Do you put the individual ways of an alternative into the main > > relation, with each member way of this alternative route assigned role > > 'alternative'. (for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9214075 > > ) > > > > 2) Or do you make a separate relation for the alternative, and add this > > relation to a super relation containing a main relation and the alternative > > relation. Then assign the member roles on relation level? > > (what Peter Elderson kind of does in this example: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9514645 collecting all variations, > > approaches and shortcuts in a super relation, but without assigning the > > roles) > > > > Or would both methods be accepted? > > > > Personally, I find method 2 a bit more practical for mapping. > > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:15:31 +0000, Michael Behrens <mfbehren...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations although > > they > > > carry a high potential for the rendering of hiking trails. This proposal > > > was requsted by Sarah Hoffmann on the FOSSGIS conference. A only > > officially > > > marked trails should be added to the relations! > > > > > > Role nameExplaination > > > *None* or main The main "normal" roletype for the main section of the > > > hiking trails. > > > forward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked into the > > > direction of the way. > > > backward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked against the > > > direction of the way. > > > alternative or alternate Tags the members of an alternative path to > > *main* > > > path. > > > excursion Can be used on parts of the trail that leads to a viewpoint, > > peak > > > or other. The path has to be hiked back again or else it will be a > > > *alternative*. > > > approach A path that is leading from a town, train station / bus station > > or > > > parking to main hiking trail or the other way around. > > > shortcut A trail that shortens the main trail. > > > > > > Please write comments here: > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles > > > > > > Greeting > > > Michael > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Tagging mailing list > > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging