[talk-ch] Is it possible to adapt the "to" member of a "destination_sign" tag?

Raphael dafadllyn at gmail.com
Mon Dec 20 22:30:12 CET 2021


Hi Raphaël

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 15:39, Raphaël Terrettaz <r.terrettaz at gmail.com> wrote:

> When I display the map, I can only seen 2 circles. That will not really help users. In the destination_sign I could indicate the first way, it will be little more explicit. But if I could enter the relation to the destination in the "to", there would be a great gain of information.
>
> Do you know why the "to" member is not accepting a relation ? Is it possible to change it ?

The purpose of the `type=destination_sign` relation is to record the
information that is written on a direction sign (signpost) as well as
its direction. Therefore a node with a `intersection` role and a node
or way with a `to` role are sufficient, see also [^1] and [^2].

I don't see much benefit in adding the hiking route relation to a
`type=destination_sign` relation. Instead this would likely make it
much more complex for applications that use OSM data to support it.

[^1]: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=983522585
[^2]: https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/destinationsign/example/index.htm#node=983522585

By the way, guideposts are usually mapped at its real position next to
a `highway=*` way and it seems that most mappers agree that the
`name=*` of a hiking route should be reserved for real route names
(e.g. the Via Alpina or the Alpine Passes Trail).

Best regards from a namesake :)

Raphael (dafadllyn)


More information about the talk-ch mailing list