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 <ianst...@iinet.net.au> 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
