|
If multiple named trail route relationns (of equal importance) share a way, how is the way to be named? |
|
This is a case where having route relations saves the day. Basically a route is a relation that contains all the ways and the name is in the route relation. A single way can be a member of multiple relations, so basically it can have more than one primary name: One on the way itself, and one on each route relation that the way is in. Thanks for the response. I should have been more specific; I've updated my question. I am already using named relations, but I'm wondering what to name the way. I'm considering "Trail A / Trail B", which is a scheme mentioned on the Key=name:left article.
(02 Apr '21, 05:09)
Joel Amos
4
I don't think you need to have a name on the trail way at all. The only time I'd put a name on the way is if it was totally different than the name(s) on the route relations. Something like a short trail with a local name that happens to be a part of a longer trail system would have the local name. But if it is simply part of one or more routes then it need not.
(02 Apr '21, 05:13)
n76
1
I would say the name should be the formal verifiable name of the section of highway. It should not be a made up fiction from a reference or description.
(02 Apr '21, 08:35)
BCNorwich
To expand on "a short trail with a local name" above, it might still make sense to have that as a route relation, if it is actually a route (just a short one) rather than the name of a particular stretch of gravel. An example of how these things can appear on maps is here - there you can see a long-distance route (the "Pennine Bridleway") and a much shorter route ("Peak District Boundary Walk") share a section of track for a short time. The short section of track does not itself have a name in OSM.
(02 Apr '21, 11:43)
SomeoneElse ♦
|
