DE talk:Switzerland/HikingNetwork
Hoffe jemand beobachtet die Seite noch: bin durch einen zweiten Mapper auf einen diametralen Widerspruch gestossen. DE:Tag:information=guidepost besagt im Abschnitt Tagging: "Erstelle einen Node Punkt an der genauen Koordinate des Wegweisers, möglichst alleinstehend, d.h. neben sonstigen ways, und zeichne ihn ggf. mit den zusätzlichen Beschreibungsmitteln folgender Tabelle aus." Hier auf der Seite hingegen steht: "Sie sollten wie in Proposed_features/Guidepost empfohlen getaggt werden und auf dem Weg stehen."
Dieser Widerspruch, sollte in dieser Art nicht vorkommen, insbesondere sabotiert dies den Zweck des Validators in JOSM. Auch blicke ich nicht durch den Grund hierfür, an einer 8, 12 oder 15 Meter breiten Strasse (Beginn von Wanderwegen in Städten) interessiert doch die genaue relative Position des Wegweisers, anstatt ihn von der Mitte der Strasse aus zu suchen, und festzustellen, dass er auf der anderen Seite der Strasse steht.
Ich bitte um Meinungen, und falls am unpräzisen Tagging festgehalten werden soll, dies im übergeordneten DE:Tag:information=guidepost (und der Englischen Version) auch so explizit festzuhalten, und die zuständigen Ansprechpartner, die den Validator pflegen in Kenntnis zu setzen. Danke im Voraus und Grüsse, Daniel --D berger (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Diese Empfehlung stammt noch aus den Anfangszeiten des Wanderwege-Mappings in der Schweiz. Die Idee war, die Struktur dem Wanderwegenetz in den Niederlanden nachzubauen, wo es allerdings echte Knotenpunkte gibt. Inzwischen hat sich das ein bisschen überholt. Die echte Position zu mappen ist wohl inzwischen üblicher. Ich habe den Nachsatz mal gelöscht. Lonvia (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Gelbe Wanderwege
Hallo zusammen
Ich möchte vorschlagen, dass das osmc:symbol für die gelbe Raute des Schweizer Wanderwegnetzes als yellow:white:yellow_diamond 'getaged' wird. Mir ist aufgefallen, dass diverse Karten das Symbol als yellow::yellow_diamond entweder gar nicht rendern oder es nur schlecht sichtbar ist. Bei versehentlich falsch, also so wie von mir gewünscht, 'getagten' Wanderwegen, ist die Sichtbarkeit auf allen Karten, die Symbole rendern, gut.
Liebe Grüsse Urs Ikoms (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hallo Ikoms. Das ist der falsche Ansatz. Was du vorschlägst, ist ein anderes Zeichen. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Taggen_f%C3%BCr_den_Renderer. Die Sichtbarkeit muss direkt bei den entsprechenden Karten sinnvoll verbessert werden. Grüsse Datendelphin (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- For OsmAnd, this is reported as a bug here: https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/9366 --Matthijskooijman (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
osmc:name=* ist für den Renderer
Wieso verwenden wir der osmc:name=* noch, das ist doch nur für den Renderer? Ich schlage die Löschung dieser tag vor. Dikkeknodel (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
name=* nicht für Beschreibung
name=* bezeichnet den Eigennamen eines Objekts Names#Name_is_the_name_only. Das können wir hier doch nicht speziell für einen Renderer mit bescheibendem Namen umdefinieren. Die Masse der schweizer Wanderweg hat nunmal keinen Namen. Da muss der Mapper doch keinen erfinden. Falls jemand mehr Informationen geben will kann er from=* und to=* verwenden. Nzara (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
(+1) Roland5 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
name=* am Wegweiser
Der Name auf dem Wegweiser bezieht sich in der Regel auf den Ort, wo der Wegweiser steht (Flurnamen, Ortsnamen, ...). Der Wegweiser selbst hat in der Regel keinen eigenen Namen. Entsprechend sollte name=* leer bleiben. Roland5 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Das gleiche würde dann gelten für Hotels, Restaurants, etc, mit ein Name der sich bezieht auf den Pass, Gipfel, etc. wo sie liegen. Die Hotels etc. sind jedoch benennt nach den Ort. Ich bin der Meinung dass die Wegweiser benennt sind nach den Ort wo sie stehen, ähnlich wie das Hotel/Restaurant. Dikkeknodel (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zwischen Wegweisen und Hotels/Restaurants besteht ein deutlicher Unterschied: Ein Hotel/Restaurant wurde durch seinen Gründer/Besitzer benannt, es ist unter diesem Namen bekannt und es bestehen oft sogar wettbewerbsrechtliche Schutzreche am Namen. Wenn der Standort auf dem Wegweiser angegeben ist, soll das den Vorbeikommenden zeigen, wo sie sich gerade befinden. Der Wegweier zeit nicht nur wohin unser Weg geht, sonder auch wo wir gerade sind. Nur in sehr selten Fällen hat der Erbauer einem Wegweiser auch einen eigenen Namen gegeben. Bei mappen vergeben wir keinen Namen, wir dokumentieren nur, unter welchem Namen das Objekt bekannt ist. --Roland5 (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Clarify how to handle unnamed guideposts
The current proposal documents to tag guideposts with their name, and routes with name attribute that specifies the from and to. However, many guideposts have no name and it is not immediately clear how to handle this.
For guideposts, simply omitting the name if it is not present on the guidepost is obvious, but it would be good to make this explicit.
For routes, this is a bit less obvious. Route segments are relations between guideposts, so how to tag a segment that goes from or to an unnamed guidepost? Essentially, such a route segment could be seen as belonging to multiple routes, which also seems how this is tagged in practice (e.g. here is an unnamed guidepost with one route that extends past it and another route that extends past it, where both routes share a segment. If this is indeed the recommended practice, it would be good to make this explicit.
I would have tried adding this information to the page directly, but my German is not quite up to that, so I hope someone else can pick this up. --Matthijskooijman (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- We have brought up your questions at the last zurich stammtisch and here is what roughly was the consensus. It is regionally different how many guideposts are named. For me it is obvious that those without the white name plate simply get no name tag. Network routes (those that do not have a number or dedicated name, but are signposted with a few next destinations) should not be doubled, they should not have duplicate segments. Rather they should but mapped as an actual network. One can simply leave out the missing from or to, or describe the lacation naturally (Verzweigung Kuhboden for example). By the way, the routes should only get a name tag for named routes. These network routes you are writing about have no name, and should rather get from=* and to=* tags or a note=* tag for identification purposes. --Datendelphin (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense, thanks (also for the other answers, those are all completely clear). Maybe handling of unnamed signposts should also be formalized/made explicit on the wikipage? It seems duplicating segments is used in practice in some areas, documenting this as a bad practice would at least prevent new instances of this occuring. You also suggest describing a location naturally, would you then also use the same invented description as `name=` on the signpost? Or maybe not `name=` but in a different tag? As for omitting names from network routes, seems that practice was indeed edited on the page after I wrote my original question, so that's clear now. --Matthijskooijman (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can we change the Wiki according to Datendelphin? - Mapping the hiking network as network without double segments. Only named if dedicated name given. The way it is now, it is unsuitable to map dense networks in the alpine region with to few named guide posts. -> hiking network near Davos with all available named guideposts. http://www.arua.ch/temp/network.png --Landscapemapper (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
symbol="gelber Diamant" or symbol="gelbe Raute"?
The proposal documents to use "gelber Diamant" for local Wanderweg routes, but in practice it seems "gelbe Raute" is used (slightly) more often (see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/symbol=gelbe%20Raute and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/symbol=gelber%20Diamant . Is there any consensus on which to use? Any plans for migrating? There seems to be some regional preference, but they are also mixed in close proximity it seems: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VTm --Matthijskooijman (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- This seems to be a cultural problem mainly. Even among the participants of the zurich stammtisch, we had different names for that shape. It seems that mainly in english, that shape is recognized as a diamond, while I do not see it as any gem like shape. For me this is rather a diamond. As this is a natural language description and not machine parseable it does not really matter which one is used, as long as it is understood locally. Which in turn seems a not straight forward from the discussion we had. --Datendelphin (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
How to map routes through a field
In the wanderweg network, it seems to occasionally happen that a route goes through a field, without any particular road or track to walk on. Lacking a way to put into the relation, how should this be mapped?
This might not be very specific to the Swiss hiking network, but I could not find any answer in the general hiking route documentation either, so I thought to start discussion here, maybe someone has previously handled this? --Matthijskooijman (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- This can be mapped with trail_visibility=no. The line can just be drawn across the field as you would walk it. A straight line if the topology allows it. --Datendelphin (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Linking to guidepost information
I've noticed that Kanton Zürich has an online map of all wanderwegen, along with locations of all guidepost and a detailed PDF of each guidepost (with details about the sign contents). This can be found at https://maps.zh.ch/ (In the bottom left "Karten" section, find the "Wanderwege" entry). It seems links to these PDFs are already added to a lot of guideposts: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VTA I can imagine that other Kantons have similar details available (I checked St Gallen where I have been mapping, and they have a map available, and it shows guideposts (disabled by default under filter) but does not link to detailed PDFs like Zürich.
Should such practices be documented on this wiki page? --Matthijskooijman (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would not document it, as it is a general tag which applies to many objects. I don't see it as a priority for mapping. It's ok to use for whoever feels the urge to add this, but I would not recommend this tag combination. Care has to be taken to not link to incompatible sources, as people could be tempted to take information from the linked pages for mapping. --Datendelphin (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)