relations & paths

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

relations & paths

brad
I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
doing this to get better rendering?
Brad

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Marc Gemis
Can you point to some examples?
In Belgium and The Netherlands we have node-networks. and some of the
routes that are mapped in those networks can be pretty short. The
shortest I know is only a few meters long:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1696883#map=19/51.01511/4.44965

regards

m.

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:17 AM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
> trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
> doing this to get better rendering?
> Brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by brad
Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes
that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a
route relation describing it.

Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as
being 'wrong'?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
> trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
> doing this to get better rendering?
> Brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by brad
Can you give an example where you think it's wrong?
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 12 mei 2020 om 04:17 schreef brad <[hidden email]>:
I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
doing this to get better rendering?
Brad

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3


sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2020, at 06:24, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes
> that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a
> route relation describing it.
>
> Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as
> being 'wrong'?


some routes may also be very short because they are still incomplete or stubs, waiting for someone to complete them. There is no requirement to add the whole route at once.


Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

brad
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
We had a pretty lengthy discussion last October subject:'Cycling
relation misuse' .  I got the impression that a route should be more
than just a short trail.

Are you saying that every trail should be route?
Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400

My subject line should have been route relations.

On 5/11/20 10:23 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes
> that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a
> route relation describing it.
>
> Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as
> being 'wrong'?
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
>> trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
>> doing this to get better rendering?
>> Brad
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Peter Elderson
My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a route. 

The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me.

Best, 
Peter Elderson


Op di 12 mei 2020 om 18:28 schreef brad <[hidden email]>:
We had a pretty lengthy discussion last October subject:'Cycling
relation misuse' .  I got the impression that a route should be more
than just a short trail.

Are you saying that every trail should be route?
Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400

My subject line should have been route relations.

On 5/11/20 10:23 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes
> that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a
> route relation describing it.
>
> Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as
> being 'wrong'?
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
>> trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
>> doing this to get better rendering?
>> Brad
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a route.
>
> The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me.

That's indeed the meaning of 'waymarked' in Waymarked Trails.  If a
trail has a distinguishable waymark (signage, blaze, ducks,
guideposts, whatever is used in a given locale) it gets a relation. No
waymark, it doesn't. Length has nothing to do with it.

I'll bend the rules slightly for named routes that are listed in
multiple guidebooks, because otherwise some major trails would be
lost. The Benton MacKaye Trail is not waymarked in certain wilderness
areas, but is described in numerous guides, named, and maintained to
the extent of occasionally cutting brush, clearing blowdown, and
repairing water bars on the treadway. In general, wilderness trails,
even if nominally waymarked, require good navigational skills, since
trail visibility may be very poor indeed. The more remote trails also
don't have a lot of vegetation control or get a lot of traffic. I've
occasionally gone an entire day without meeting another party -
although that was often 20-30 km from anywhere you can park a car,
which filters out a lot of hikers.

In the US, walking and MTB trails are likely to have only a splash of
paint on trees at intervals.  The blue-green paint blazes seen in
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018094576 are pretty typical.
The trails that they mark range in length from a few hundred metres
(short access trails leading to parking lots, campsites, views,
whatever) to a few thousand km (the National Scenic Trails). In remote
areas, trails might go a few hundred metres between even paint blazes;
they don't have a lot of reassurance markings. More popular trails, or
ones nearer the 'front country' are likely to have marks frequent
enough that you're always in sight of one.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Yves-2
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson


Le 12 mai 2020 19:02:24 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A
>sign, a
>trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's
>not a
>route.
>
>The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a
>difference to
>me.
>
I'll also include 'well known' or 'commonly used' in your definition.
Yves

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

brad
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. 
There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does
it need to be a route also?

On 5/12/20 11:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a route.
>>
>> The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me.
> That's indeed the meaning of 'waymarked' in Waymarked Trails.  If a
> trail has a distinguishable waymark (signage, blaze, ducks,
> guideposts, whatever is used in a given locale) it gets a relation. No
> waymark, it doesn't. Length has nothing to do with it.
>
> I'll bend the rules slightly for named routes that are listed in
> multiple guidebooks, because otherwise some major trails would be
> lost. The Benton MacKaye Trail is not waymarked in certain wilderness
> areas, but is described in numerous guides, named, and maintained to
> the extent of occasionally cutting brush, clearing blowdown, and
> repairing water bars on the treadway. In general, wilderness trails,
> even if nominally waymarked, require good navigational skills, since
> trail visibility may be very poor indeed. The more remote trails also
> don't have a lot of vegetation control or get a lot of traffic. I've
> occasionally gone an entire day without meeting another party -
> although that was often 20-30 km from anywhere you can park a car,
> which filters out a lot of hikers.
>
> In the US, walking and MTB trails are likely to have only a splash of
> paint on trees at intervals.  The blue-green paint blazes seen in
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018094576 are pretty typical.
> The trails that they mark range in length from a few hundred metres
> (short access trails leading to parking lots, campsites, views,
> whatever) to a few thousand km (the National Scenic Trails). In remote
> areas, trails might go a few hundred metres between even paint blazes;
> they don't have a lot of reassurance markings. More popular trails, or
> ones nearer the 'front country' are likely to have marks frequent
> enough that you're always in sight of one.
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Paul Johnson-3
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. 
There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does
it need to be a route also?

Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route.  It's part of a route. 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Jmapb
On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. 
There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does
it need to be a route also?

Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route.  It's part of a route. 

Yes but that's *part* of a route, a route relation with many other members. Brad's asking about single-member route relations.

My understanding, still evolving, is that tagging conventions originally developed for long-distance walking routes -- thing like osmc:symbol, colour, distance, network -- are sometimes applicable to shorter trails, including those that are only a single highway=path/footway. Mappers reading the wiki page for osmc:symbol will be told that this tag is only to be used with route relations. Some mappers who want to add a symbol to a single-highway trail might tag osmc:symbol directly on the highway anyway (Taginfo shows 2924 instances of this) and some might create a single-member route relation.

Another thing to consider -- for vehicle roads we have a many-tiered hierarchy from motorway down to track, which assists in routing and rendering. Paths and footways have no such hierarchy, so adding them to a relation along with the relation-specific tags is one technique mappers have used to call out trails of greater importance.

Finally there's the issue of software and rendering support. Waymarked Trails, as Kevin mentioned, only supports route relations. I believe other hiking map renderers work similarly. Of course this is not how OSM is "supposed" to work -- structuring data for a particular renderer or software -- but nonetheless it is a factor in how people map.

Jason


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Paul Johnson-3
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. 
There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does
it need to be a route also?

Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route.  It's part of a route. 

Yes but that's *part* of a route, a route relation with many other members. Brad's asking about single-member route relations.

And so is that 50-51 segment in the Dutch cycle network. Even if it's  a particularly short one.

Finally there's the issue of software and rendering support. Waymarked Trails, as Kevin mentioned, only supports route relations. I believe other hiking map renderers work similarly. Of course this is not how OSM is "supposed" to work -- structuring data for a particular renderer or software -- but nonetheless it is a factor in how people map.

We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools still can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

brad
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.

On 5/12/20 8:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a
>     path.
>     There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.  
>     Why does
>     it need to be a route also?
>
>
> Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a
> route.  It's part of a route.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Paul Johnson-3


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.

 I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case.  Data consumers still need to know the route is there. 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Jmapb
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3

On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools still can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now.

Sure. Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice -- what would be your answer?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Paul Johnson-3

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jmapb <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools still can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now.

Sure. Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice -- what would be your answer?

Is it part of a network?  Is it signed as part of a network?  OK 166 was a single member relation until I did lane tagging on it and had to split that way a couple times.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

brad
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
It isn't a route, except in OSM, it's just a trail.

On 5/13/20 9:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.

 I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case.  Data consumers still need to know the route is there. 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Jmapb



May 13, 2020, 17:43 by [hidden email]:

On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools still can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now.
Sure. 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.
(a) for consistency.
(b) because in case of splitting this single  way it will be not result in problems with relation

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relations & paths

Yves-2
In reply to this post by brad
I prefer a single member route relation than a way with type=route, route=whatever. The later lead to much more uncertainty in the tags meaning.
Yves

Le 13 mai 2020 18:17:37 GMT+02:00, brad <[hidden email]> a écrit :
It isn't a route, except in OSM, it's just a trail.

On 5/13/20 9:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.

 I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case.  Data consumers still need to know the route is there. 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123