Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
Again, you folks are on the right track, here: keep discussing whether a single bidirectional route (with summer-winter alternates) is better, though that will require very careful role tag management — OR whether a single super-relation representing "the whole route, with all of its complexities" might be made up of at least a north, a south, a summer alternate, a winter alternate and campsite-spurs (where each of those is a relation, subordinate to the super-relation as members) is better. Could go either way, depending on how heads nod. Either way isn't terribly complex (though the latter might seem a bit scary if you haven't done that before, it's actually easier to think about it like this, in one sense). It's quite doable either way (or even another way...but nobody has gotten extra-clever and designed "another way," so keep these two basic flavors on the table and continue to discuss). "Maintain-ability" is doable with either kind of route, it simply takes some getting used to: look at other routes, especially hiking and I'd say bicycle, though railway, train and public_transport routes (their relations and how they are structured) can be instructive here. Big hiking routes are a best comparison. 1000 km is long, so you really want to think about the management of the number of members in a single relation if you choose the bidirectional method: don't go over 1000 members (in a single relation) if you can help it and absolutely don't go above 2000 no matter what (if so, you do need to break it up into sub-relations). "On the right track" includes talking about this (including fears, trepidation, difficulty of management / maintainability...) and carefully walking "steps along the way" — I'd say this sort of talking about things right here is excellent along those lines. And yes, if one particular approach doesn't seem to be working, change it so it does. But you'll know when it's working when everybody is nodding their heads together saying "oh, yeah, I look at how this route is structured in OSM and it makes perfect sense to me" (to the point where if it needed a tweak, it would be a relatively simply edit to fix things). That's what you're shooting for. Not any rank novice being able to do this, but the people on this list reading and paying attention (and like-minded OSM volunteers at an intermediate- or advanced-level of editing relations skill), yeah. You can agree. Keep up the good dialog / work, the pieces seem to be coming together! Don't rush things, it's better to dialog first, agree on a well-designed structure, and maybe chunk it up so everybody gets a chunk of work to do to make it all happen. Speaking from experience, this sort of "technical community building" can be one of the most fun ways we map together! > On Sep 10, 2022, at 9:38 PM, Ian Steer wrote: >> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 16:39:39 +1000 >> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> >> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way? > >> Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga > line ... >> with the 'extras' off to the end ... that used to make following it > easier? >> >> I would think that one file will all the variations (north/south bound, > season >> winter/summer) would be quite hard for the users to use and the >> maintainers to maintain... ??? >> > I have mused on the maintainability (since that is dear to my heart), but I > think having the north/south, summer/winter in one relation will be simpler > that breaking-out more sub-relations - and I think simplest is best. > Anyway, what I am proposing is a step along the way to a more complex > implementation which could be done if this approach doesn't seem to be > working. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 16:39:39 +1000 > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way? > Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga line ... > with the 'extras' off to the end ... that used to make following it easier? > > I would think that one file will all the variations (north/south bound, season > winter/summer) would be quite hard for the users to use and the > maintainers to maintain... ??? > I have mused on the maintainability (since that is dear to my heart), but I think having the north/south, summer/winter in one relation will be simpler that breaking-out more sub-relations - and I think simplest is best. Anyway, what I am proposing is a step along the way to a more complex implementation which could be done if this approach doesn't seem to be working. Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
Ian, That sounds like a plan and perhaps a final sub or a separate relationship for the huts. I am still not 100% sure that the continuous alignment will work overtime without Ian's eagle eye as other users not aware of the MB can make significant changes. Ewen On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 19:59, stevea wrote: > On Sep 10, 2022, at 2:21 AM, Ian Steer wrote: > >> What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi > ... > > - and I would give the winter section, and northbound one-way sections > in the main route relation a role of “alternative" > > Outstanding! I step further aside and let you masters craft such a thing, > marvel from afar, nod my head and smile. > > Happy mapping. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Warm Regards Ewen Hill ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
On Sep 10, 2022, at 2:21 AM, Ian Steer wrote: >> What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi ... > - and I would give the winter section, and northbound one-way sections in the > main route relation a role of “alternative" Outstanding! I step further aside and let you masters craft such a thing, marvel from afar, nod my head and smile. Happy mapping. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
> > What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi master > relation, containing only 3 sub-relations: > 1. the existing relation containing the main route (including both north & > south-bound one-way sections, plus the winter/summer routes) > 2. a new > "Munda Biddi Collie Spur" relation > 3. the existing Munda Biddi Alternate > relation (that is presently a sub-relation of the relation containing the main > route) containing all the hut spurs, huts etc > - and I would give the winter section, and northbound one-way sections in the main route relation a role of "alternative" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
> From: Ewen Hill > Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2022 9:35 AM > To: Ian Steer > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way? > >I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and the > other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route which apart from > one amazing hut that is smack bang in the middle of the trail, are normally > just off the trail on short spurs. > > Where it started with two relationships of MB-Main and MB-Alternative, I > believe a master MB would be preferable containing all the huts, spurs, > winter/summer variations and the main route. Where there is a spur like > Collie (~16km?), an additional MB-Collie-Spur might be worthwhile. > > Having a single master would allow users to easily extract the entire route > and huts in one go and prepare them for their garmin and whatever GIS > software they use.It would also give councils, emergency services, tourism > operators etc. easy access to all of the relevant data. I don't see the need > to > maintain any other spur relationships unless the spur is ~> 2km as it's > probably overkill and makes it more complex to maintain. > What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi master relation, containing only 3 sub-relations: 1. the existing relation containing the main route (including both north & south-bound one-way sections, plus the winter/summer routes) 2. a new "Munda Biddi Collie Spur" relation 3. the existing Munda Biddi Alternate relation (that is presently a sub-relation of the relation containing the main route) containing all the hut spurs, huts etc I note that the hut spurs could perhaps be left in the main relation and tagged with an "excursion" role (rather than dragged-out into a separate relation as they are now). What are the pros and cons of leaving them in the main route and using the excursion role? I suppose one disadvantage would be that sorting the route would show discontinuities ? Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
On 10/9/22 11:34, Ewen Hill wrote: Hi Ian, Firstly, thank you to you and the Munda Biddi (MB) elves for providing an amazing 1000km cycling route, mainly off-road, sometimes on ball bearings, other times on sand and the rest mainly on fire trails and single track. It is an amazing asset and something that I will cherish completing. I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and the other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route which apart from one amazing hut that is smack bang in the middle of the trail, are normally just off the trail on short spurs. Please note that this route is not set in stone and sections are replaced on a regular basis. Where it started with two relationships of MB-Main and MB-Alternative, I believe a master MB would be preferable containing all the huts, spurs, winter/summer variations and the main route. Where there is a spur like Collie (~16km?), an additional MB-Collie-Spur might be worthwhile. Having a single master would allow users to easily extract the entire route and huts in one go and prepare them for their garmin and whatever GIS software they use.It would also give councils, emergency services, tourism operators etc. easy access to all of the relevant data. I don't see the need to maintain any other spur relationships unless the spur is ~> 2km as it's probably overkill and makes it more complex to maintain. The waymarker trails website uses the relation/s to generate a GPX file and an elevation display .. quite handy. If all the huts are in there too .. I think it ignores nodes .. other than guide posts? Possibly it ignore them too. It would be nice to have, yet more, roles for huts/campsites, toilets, water and a role for the trails leading to them.. At the moment these are not included in the relationship instructions .. so lack any support or organized thinking. I don't know how easy it is to have all that in a simple GPX file .. the newer ones do have more features... Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga line ... with the 'extras' off to the end ... that used to make following it easier? I would think that one file will all the variations (north/south bound, season winter/summer) would be quite hard for the users to use and the maintainers to maintain... ??? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
