Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the > trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact > route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route. > > A series of trail blazes or way marks tells me that I most likely on a trail that someone has marked as a hiking trail. If I persist and follow the trail, finding more and more of these blazes I will, in most case encounter a signpost or guidepost that tells me more about the trail (name, ref, destination, ...) This leads me to what I really wanted to say: Trail route relations (and cycling route relations) could or should (?) include the guideposts, and for that purpose we need a role for these nodes: role=guidepost The only mention in the wiki is this one: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Wandern#In_die_Relation_aufnehmen
In Italy the Club Alpino Italiano has recently started a collaboration with the OSM community (under the "roof" of the Italian Wikimedia association) that aims at transferring the 50k km trail network of the Club into OSM. Part of this is the use of hiking relations and the guideposts will be inserted in the hiking route relations. Details are documented on the wiki page CAI <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CAI> (in Italian). The new roles in the proposal do not bother me too much. I am not against them, but I do not see any great benefit in having them. As an end.user, I regularly plan (cycling) tours using various route planning tools (who typically give preference to cycling routes), but in that context it does not matter what role a particular part of relation has, the only important thing is whether a way is part of a route or not.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
