May 15, 2020, 04:05 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > > > On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 15, 2020, 01:36 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> : >> >>> On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >>> >>>> May 14, 2020, 16:40 by >>>> jm...@gmx.com>>>> : >>>> >>>>> On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr <>>>>>> >>>>>> doerr.step...@gmail.com>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb >>>>>>>> <>>>>>>>> jm...@gmx.com>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding the original question -- >>>>>>>>> in what circumstances are >>>>>>>>> single-member walking/hiking/biking >>>>>>>>> route relations a good mapping >>>>>>>>> practice -- what would be your answer? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Always >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Doesn't that violate>>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No. The route traverses the way, it's not the way. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway >>>>> or path should be part of a route relation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The bike trail that brad linked to, >>>>> >>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400>>>>> -- I've never been >>>>> there but I don't offhand see any reason to call it a route. >>>>> (Brad has been there, I assume, because it looks like he >>>>> updated it 2 days ago.) There's no information in the >>>>> relation tags that isn't also on the way itself. Is there >>>>> any benefit to creating a route relation in cases like this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Better handling of future way splits, consistency. >>>> >>> >>> I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat >>> future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show >>> the whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify >>> surface, etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a >>> stretch to declare any named trail of any length as a route, >>> >>> >> Named way is not enough to be a route. >> >> Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be a signed path >> through a forest, >> with two objects: >> >> - path across forest (with or without name) >> - signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also a name) >> >> > So you're saying any path with a sign should be a route. Should that > extend to all tracks, and roads of all varieties also? I assume you are > not limiting this to 'path across forest', it could be path across desert, > or prairie, or town park? > > Any signed route may be mapped as a route relation. But in many cases there will be a sign, without a route. "Beware of a dog" sign does not mean that there is a route there. And sometimes signed route will be signed with paint markings on trees, or by piles of rocks or by some other method rather than be a sign.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
