On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bob Gambrel <rjgamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and > that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done. > > It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local > name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact, > seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation, > and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that > are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are > named "Highway 65", again by the locals. > > I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer > primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what > OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the > map more useful to real people, not just cartographers. > > Thanks. That seems to be the safest approach as perhaps some data consumers don't yet process route relations. Mike
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
