Kevin Kenny wrote: > And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails - > it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated > with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even > relatively trivial stuff like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600.(although > that certainly meets Richard's five-mile threshold).
Ok. I've just finished a pass through CONUS relationising pretty much all the significant leisure trails I could find for which there weren't already route relations. HDYC is telling me that "recently" I've added 334 bike routes - I'm not sure what period that covers but it sounds about right. By and large I've tagged them with network=lcn - there's certainly a case for upgrading some to =rcn but I'll leave that to those with local knowledge. There's a bit of work still to do on smaller local trails that also form part of a longer route - e.g. parts of the Bay Trail, or the East Coast Greenway. It would be good to have a distinct C&O Canal Trail relation over and above the USBRS 50 relation, for example. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
