Loose guidepost nodes are a nuisance when processing route relations by hand or by software. On the other hand, you might argue that most routes are nothing else than imaginary lines between guideposts.
But I would say, practically, guideposts do not need to be in the route relation. If a guidepost is part of a route, it is also part of a way so the point location is already in there. No need to add it again. You could simply take an existing node or add one on the existing way, add some tags to it, if you want to enable special rendering or processing. If it's not on a way, it's also not part of a route. It just happens to be near. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 13 apr. 2019 om 20:52 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 13. Apr 2019, at 12:06, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > But your example is different. You put the function into the name field. > For me the role of an object tagged information=guidepost is exactly that, > a guidepost. I am sure I am missing something, otherwise it would not have > 50k uses. > > > I guess people are putting the guideposts into the relations because they > feel they belong to the route, and they add the role so it becomes evident > in the relation editor why there are node members. > It doesn’t seem to create problems, but it also doesn’t seem to add > anything (provided there would not be objects acting as guideposts that > aren’t guideposts) > > > Cheers, Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
