[ma9 schrieb am 01.10.17 15:26]
Why is it required for all trails to have either name or osmc:name tag to be
displayed on the map?
Sometimes it is not practical, for example in Slovakia, where trails rarely
have an official name and usually are identified by ref number only.
It looks like the local community also does not find this useful, please see:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osm_s ... discussion
<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osm_s ... discussion>
Name requirement for trails
-
Gast
Re: Name requirement for trails
[mtbbiker99 schrieb am 01.10.17 21:25]
Hello ma9,
Yes that´s right. Also in Germany there are many small hiking trails without
names. I then assign meaningful names. It helps in orientation.
The relevant hiking association should be contacted. Naming is actually
standard.
Gruß mtbbiker99
(Garmin GPSmap64s, etrex 20x, Colorado300, Ubuntu16.04)
Hello ma9,
Yes that´s right. Also in Germany there are many small hiking trails without
names. I then assign meaningful names. It helps in orientation.
The relevant hiking association should be contacted. Naming is actually
standard.
Gruß mtbbiker99
(Garmin GPSmap64s, etrex 20x, Colorado300, Ubuntu16.04)
-
Gast
Re: Name requirement for trails
[Nop schrieb am 02.10.17 09:01]
ma9:Why is it required for all trails to have either name or osmc:name tag to
be displayed on the map?
It is a practical measure to be able to distinguish different trails from one
another and find and rejoin fragmented ways started by different mappers. When
you are looking at a search list of 100 unnamed hiking routes this is kind of
useless.
ma9:Sometimes it is not practical, for example in Slovakia, where trails
rarely have an official name and usually are identified by ref number only.
If this is an established scheme for an area and the reference is always
present, then the operator and the reference number is sufficient, too. I still
think that it is better to assign a meaningful name to the route that helps
people recognize whether it is helpful without looking up the number in a
different list. Every route usually has a start and a destination that is good
to know and if that information is posted on guideposts I consider it good
enough for a name. But currently there are two areas with working exceptions
when no names are given, the mountain trails in the alps which all have the
same color as markings and a number to identify them and the french GR trails.
To do this requires a discussion to make the logic of the scheme known (which
you might have just started) so I can recognize such routes and establish an
exception - and to ensure that all/a majority of the existing routes really
follow the scheme so the exception works in real life.
ma9:It looks like the local community also does not find this useful, please
see:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osm_s ... discussion
<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osm_s ... discussion>
Well, the linked post has only one single reply. That would be a very small
"community".
bye, Nop
Zuletzt bearbeitet am 02.10.17 09:04
ma9:Why is it required for all trails to have either name or osmc:name tag to
be displayed on the map?
It is a practical measure to be able to distinguish different trails from one
another and find and rejoin fragmented ways started by different mappers. When
you are looking at a search list of 100 unnamed hiking routes this is kind of
useless.
ma9:Sometimes it is not practical, for example in Slovakia, where trails
rarely have an official name and usually are identified by ref number only.
If this is an established scheme for an area and the reference is always
present, then the operator and the reference number is sufficient, too. I still
think that it is better to assign a meaningful name to the route that helps
people recognize whether it is helpful without looking up the number in a
different list. Every route usually has a start and a destination that is good
to know and if that information is posted on guideposts I consider it good
enough for a name. But currently there are two areas with working exceptions
when no names are given, the mountain trails in the alps which all have the
same color as markings and a number to identify them and the french GR trails.
To do this requires a discussion to make the logic of the scheme known (which
you might have just started) so I can recognize such routes and establish an
exception - and to ensure that all/a majority of the existing routes really
follow the scheme so the exception works in real life.
ma9:It looks like the local community also does not find this useful, please
see:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osm_s ... discussion
<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osm_s ... discussion>
Well, the linked post has only one single reply. That would be a very small
"community".
bye, Nop
Zuletzt bearbeitet am 02.10.17 09:04