So please go ahead and make the definition precise. OSM is a do-ocracy. Nothing will change by just repeating that OSM is fuzzy on the Belgian mailing list :-)
regards m p.s. no need to tell me you already tried this for "opening hours", I know that. On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, André Pirard <a.pir...@ulg.ac.be> wrote: > On 2014-12-03 11:49, Marc Gemis wrote : > > What's fuzzy about the text "To tag a hiking route you create a relation > <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation> with the approbiate tags > and add all elements (points and ways) of the hiking route to this relation. > > Open your eyes: the answer is in the Subject: of your message: "OSM Pff > several hours working on this..." > The fact that mappers don't understand what to, do do it wrong and that it > generates many discussions. > "add all elements (points and ways) of the hiking route to this relation" > is obviousness because a relation without elements makes no sense and it's > useless if the way to do it is not explained precisely, especially the > roles. > A precise, instead of fuzzy, definition doesn't take hours to be > understood and tried, and it doesn't lead to find that JOSM issues warnings > showing that it understood differently. > > See also Relation:route > <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route>." which is on the > page that you mentioned ? (spelling mistake copied from the page) > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM, André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 2014-12-03 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote : >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:30 PM, André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Usually, hiking routes are designed to be walked in a single direction >>> (the signs are not well visible in the other) and that can be stressed with >>> oneway=yes. >> >> >> Que ? Are you placing oneway=yes on footpaths ? >> >> No. If "routes are designed to be walked in a single direction", >> oneway=yes is tagged on route relations and not on the ways nor on the >> nodes. That's obvious and explained at the URLs I mentioned. >> >> Since a walking route is something on-top of existing paths, it is >> wrong to add oneway on the path. One can take the path in the other >> direction when one does not follow the signposted route. By putting >> oneway=yes on the path you just block that possibility for a navigation >> device. >> This would be the same as putting a oneway=yes on a street, just because >> a bus route is only going in one direction through that street, while it is >> a two-way street. >> >> One of the relation pages you mention links to >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route where the roles of the >> members are explained. Forward & backward are mentioned there. >> >> We know that, but it's the particular usage for hiking routes that's >> missing and hence fuzzy, which is why Jakka was puzzled. >> >> >> One can also use http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation to verify >> the correctness of a relation. Fill in the number (4225213 from Andrés >> example) >> >> regards >> >> m >> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
