Hi Michael,
I mostly agree with your suggestions. As I mentioned on one of the Talk pages I would also explicitly tag unnamed guideposts with noname=yes to distinguish them from those where the name just hasn't been added yet.
However, I don't see any need for a requirement for each way to be only in a single base network relation. It seems better to map all relations up to a named guidepost, especially because that's how the base network routes are signposted. The only potential issue (the one already mentioned: https://github.com/waymarkedtrails/waymarked-trails-site/issues/312) is when (base network) routes with different difficulty share one section. The signage must already mark them as a (white-red-white) mountain hiking trail even if an initial section is shared with a (yellow) hiking trail, but a renderer might want to show only the easiest base network marking available for each section.
For QA, we might also want to consider integrating with Knooppuntnet ( https://knooppuntnet.nl/en/map/hiking, https://github.com/vmarc/knooppuntnet) which should make it easier to identify broken relations. They are working on support for networks with named nodes: https://github.com/vmarc/knooppuntnet/issues/102, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Named_nodes_in_node_ne...
Best, Enno
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:13 PM Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 11:08:41PM +0200, René Buffat wrote:
Salut Micheal
What are the inconsistencies you intend to address?
Regarding the network structure, the current Wiki entry seems quite specific:
The hiking nodes are labeled guideposts. Each of them contains a small
white signboard with the name of the place (usually open fields names) > and the elevation over mean sea level. They should be tagged as
The current wiki page was written in 2009 before the very first route relation was every created. It was a theoretical proposal of what seemed reasonable. It has changed so little that it even still has the warning about being preliminary.
The wiki does not correctly reflect what then later became common practise. I surely can tell you that the author of the proposal has never mapped hiking routes to the exact letter of what is written there. Michael's new proposal reflects much better the actual tagging that developped over time.
That's just to say that there is no point in citing the wiki as authoritive source in this discussion because the author of the page is very much aware that what she wrote then is not quite correct now.
Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch