|
Religiour routea typically contain wayside crosses as "stops" on the route. That is ok until the wayside cross is not a small chaple marked like a building rather than a point. See for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1571254 Than the question is - what is the best way to include these buildings (as stops) in the relation. Just including them may be confusing, because any "way" included in route relation is considered currently part of the route itself. |
|
This is simply a tagging issue, relation members can have "roles" in this case useful values might be "halt" or "infrastructure" data consumers should not do anything with values/roles they don't understand so this in principle should be safe. Unluckily JOSM suggests adding such values without a role, something that is clearly defective. Now the other part of the equation is getting data consumers to actually do something reasonable with the members with such role values. The best way to achieve that is to get buy in to whatever role values you are proposing on the tagging mailing list and by documenting the role values you propose to use in the wiki. It would be great if it is like you write it, however I beleive that the empty role is a part the specification - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
(30 Nov '18, 16:19)
gorn
The empty role is for the ways that make up the route according to the specification, not for anything else.
(30 Nov '18, 16:33)
SimonPoole ♦
|
