On 18/05/2012 23:51, m902 wrote:
1. Should I add it to the (already too big) South West Coast Path
relation? The bits I've looked aren't currently part of any
relation. Or should there be a new relation for the South Dorset
Ridgeway?
Given that the SW Coast Path relation has broken and had to be repaired
recently, I'd definitely add a new relation for the new bit. Perhaps it
makes sense to have a "super relation" for the whole SW path made up of
smaller relations, of which this can be one alternative route (if I've
understood the situation properly)?
1. Most of the sections I walked today were tagged with 'name=South
West Coast Path Inland'. That obviously renders well, but I wonder
if it is wise? (try a Nominatim search). As a temporary measure
I've changed this to 'name=South Dorset Ridgeway' and
alt_name='South West Coast Path Inland'.
Unless it's really obvious that the name of a particular piece of path
is "blah" (as opposed to being part or a longer route called "blah") I'd
name the relation but I wouldn't name each way "blah". I'd imagine that
most data consumers can handle named relations - Garmin users; Lonvia's
hiking map:
http://hiking.lonvia.de/en/?zoom=11&lat=50.67447&lon=-2.55581
In some cases (e.g. bits of the Pennine Way) it does make sense to name
individual ways because they're called that and nothing else, but there
are plenty of other places where it's not the case (regional paths in
Notts and Derbys near me). Ultimately it's your call though - you're
there and we're not.
Cheers,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
