On 6/3/20 7:28 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
To circle back to my question, I would not use something like
"detached" for a trail like The North Trail, because it still is one
trail and you would probably want to have the option to export it as a
whole, and to see the height profile (with gaps but still useful) and
total length calculation.
Umm "detached" is not quite right? Umm
Noncontinuous, discontinuous, fragmented, disconnected ???
In any event the present system will show it as that, even without any
special roles. The problem is that mappers seeing it may think that it
lacks members to make it continuous.
For my collection of island loops that does not make much sense I
think. The same goes for the "bonus" loops of some of the other
longish trails, hikers do not see those as part of the main route.
Still, they carry the same name (verifiable by survey, symbol and
operator, are described in the same paper guide and web site, and are
maintained by the operator ("<trail name> path group") as part of that
trail, so on a map of this trail users will want to see it.
So, I create a separate relation for the detached loop, and I want to
include that as a member in the parent route relation next to the main
route and all the variants. Then I would like a role to indicate
"render this like the main route, but exclude it from length
calculation, elevation graph and gpx/kml-export".
Otherwise I would probably assign the role "excursion" even though it
is not attached to the main trail. A renderer could well decide to
render excursion same as main, while excluding the excursions from the
exports and calculations.
To me both 'excursion' and 'bonus' loops would be "alternatives".
Best, Peter Elderson
Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 om 06:23 schreef Jmapb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On 3/5/2020 9:27 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
Do you know trails with detached sections? We have some in
Nederland, on the islands. Doesn't fit in the proposed role
scheme, I think.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
See this section of the E10 in Czechia (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5465693 ) -- there's no
connection between these three sections of trail, and I don't know
if there ever will be. I think the E* European long-distance
trails have a lot of these discontiguous sections.
In the USA I know of the North Country Trail, which is very
incompletely mapped in OSM (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8808051 ). Much of it is
made up of other trails. Unlike other long-distance trails, the
North Country Trail doesn't claim to be contiguous on a micro
level, and has hundreds of disjoined sections. It shares a lot of
physical trail with the Finger Lakes Trail in New York State, but
(by my understanding) in a conceptually different way: The Finger
Lakes Trail aims to be contiguous and will consider a half mile
(or much more in some cases) walk along a residential road between
two sections of wilderness to be part of the route. The North
Country Trail will include the sections of hiking trail through
both of the wilderness portions, but will not include the road
walk. When you step onto the road, you've left the North Country
Trail but you're still on the Finger Lakes Trail. Once you go back
into the woods, you're on both trails again.
Jason
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
