#19403 closed enhancement (fixed)
Request to support new roles when validating route relations.
Reported by: | Owned by: | team | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 20.06 |
Component: | Internal preset | Version: | |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
Five new roles have been approved for route relations. See osmwiki:Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
The roles are: alternative
, approach
, excursion
, connection
, main
.
No role is the same as main for data users, but the explicit value main is now an approved value.
Validation currently warns about roles other than forward, backward, and guidepost for members of route relations.
We would appreciate if the new role values could become accepted by the standard validation rules.
Attachments (1)
Change History (14)
comment:1 by , 5 years ago
comment:2 by , 5 years ago
Component: | Core validator → Internal preset |
---|
comment:5 by , 5 years ago
Strange... the relation editor supports forward/backward roles for the continuity/way direction line display and when sorting. You would think validation would then also accept the roles!
comment:6 by , 5 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
Currently, we have
<role key="" text="route segment" requisite="required" type="way,closedway" member_expression="highway|route=ferry"/> <role key="" text="infrastructure" requisite="optional" type="node,closedway" member_expression="tourism OR amenity"/> <role key="" text="natural" requisite="optional" type="node,closedway" member_expression="natural=peak OR natural=volcano OR mountain_pass=yes OR natural=water OR tourism=viewpoint OR amenity=drinking_water OR natural=spring OR place=locality"/> <role key="guidepost" text="guidepost" requisite="optional" type="node" member_expression="information=guidepost"/>
Guidepost coming from osmwiki:Relation:route#Members
I'm waiting for an update of osmwiki:Tag:route%3Dhiking#Elements_of_a_relation. Currently, too much time for researching the status quo is needed (at least for me).
comment:7 by , 5 years ago
Updated. The roles are optional, and valid for route relations of types route=bicycle|canoe|foot|hiking|horse|inline_skates|mtb|running.
Note that the roles forward|backward were already in wide use for way members of these route relations (especially but not exclusively bicycle routes).
follow-up: 11 comment:8 by , 5 years ago
I was hoping to see a nice table such as in osmwiki:Tag:route%3Dski#Members …
by , 5 years ago
Attachment: | 2020-06-21-200915.png added |
---|
comment:11 by , 5 years ago
Replying to simon04:
I was hoping to see a nice table such as in osmwiki:Tag:route%3Dski#Members …
Wasn't this one in the proposal ok? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles#Tagging
comment:13 by , 4 years ago
So main
was never added, see #20731, and only transport mode foot
was considered. Are there any reasons for this?
(Please don't set the milestone next time. Thats up to the JOSM team.)