I have some doubts about the need to link the feature to the relation. The node is already in or possibly very near the route, and the feature could be tagged, displayed and routed as a type of POI.
But, if entered into a route relation, role checkpoint sounds ok to me. Then it could be displayed with an icon even if not tagged. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 01:11 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 09/12/19 10:44, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Ok, just asking to make sure. > > > As an overview most hiking things are on > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking > > > Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for > the one and nothing special for the other? > > > Yes. > > > Would a checkpoint need to be a node of a way in the relation? > > > If it only relates only to that relation then quite possibly. > > If it is a required activity for that route then I would think so. This > would link it to the operator, route name etc, possibly minimising the work > of mappers and reducing errors? > > > Vr gr Peter Elderson > > > Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:16 schreef Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > >> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:10 PM Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Is a checkpoint a feature in itself? >> >> Of course it is. A way segment is also a feature in itself, which >> doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be part of a route relation: >> "When you're hiking this route, you'll need to sign in at these >> points." > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:checkpoint > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
