> Michael's new proposal reflects much better the
actual tagging that developped over time.

I strongly disagree that using unnamed guideposts as nodes is the actual tagging. Hiking routes are by a vast majority mapped between named guideposts (=Ways can be part of multiple lwn relations). In most of the cases the relations have a name=tag including the guidepost label at the start and the end of the relation. This is easily verifiable using hiking.waymarkedtrails.org

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 16:13, 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