Proposal talk:Tag:route=piste

network=* needed?

Wouldn't be the route=piste part of a bigger route=piste instead? --Yvecai 11:39, 09 January 2011

Personally I don't see much use for the tag network=*. I took it over from route=ski, but I'm not quite sure what purpose it is supposed to serve over there. --Shernott 12:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd need place association tag instead, ie., the route (a loop) is (more or less formally) considered to be a part of place X network. Determining that automatically is hardly possible. Ij 21:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the use of the network=* tag in the route relation, it seems that it is not used to designate a specific network, but more the general network type ("local", "regional", "national", or "international"). You could use the operator=* tag instead, or you could use ski areas to contain your route, or you might want to have a look at the proposals for creating hierarchical area relations. --Shernott 14:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

distance=* needed?

Ok to see if the route=piste relation is complete, but I'm not sure that this quality information as a place in the database. At least complete_length=* instead? --Yvecai 11:39, 09 January 2011

Again, I took this over from route=ski, but here I could see some use: not so much for testing for completeness, but for giving the information about the official length of a piste. If a piste has a couple of variants, that information might be a bit tricky to calculate otherwise. --Shernott 12:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Official" distance given in signs, descriptions, etc. can vary from the actual length (usually it still round correctly but there are also variations due to later changes to the route itself which didn't get properly propagated to information about the route). Ij 21:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the official distance will never be a number exact down to the meter. But then, it wouldn't make much sense to store such precise information in a tag anyway, a movement of a single node of a way of the relation would make it obsolete. The use that I could see for this tag is to give you a quick and rough idea of the effort required by telling you whether it is a 5km or a 12km distance that you will be dealing with. I don't consider this tag to be particularly useful or important, I took it over mainly because it is part of the tags of the route relation and it seemed to be useful and important to the creators of route=ski. --Shernott 14:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

website=* needed?

I agree for a page directly related to the actual route=piste, however, it would be in the majority of case something that would rather be related to a ski resort relation that would join route=piste relations, piste:type=* ways, and whatever is in the OpenPisteMap proposal, plus parkings, .... --Yvecai 11:39, 09 January 2011

As far as I understand, ski resorts are to be tagged as areas, not relations. "Those who invented relations" seem to have very strong feelings about using relations to group different items into categories. So I'd keep the tag website=* there, even if it's likely that all the pistes of a resort will point to the same website. --Shernott 12:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the article, it make sense. Then, the relation could have a area=* and a resort=* (to follow this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_resort . If ski areas make sense for downhill resort where there is areas to ski on, for nordic 'resorts' it's more a collection of ways, and I don't know any determinist way to link them (in some case they are not connected). Maybe it why network=* is here, but it's a strange name for a tag --Yvecai 21:46, 09 January 2011

I guess you are looking for an "Infrastructure Relation", that could be used to aggregate all logical members of ski resorts (or domains), and maybe just as well items belonging to golf courses or airports. The nature of the problem is is not so much technical than social, it's difficult to raise sufficient interest and achieve consensus on such rarely needed specialized relations. Nevertheless, there are already some proposals for this kind of relation. But it seems that while OSM's low-level bottom-up approach allows for a high community involvement, it is difficult to implement high-level top-down data structures for a generalised ontological reasoning along the lines "find all the pistes being member of a ski resort" or "find all the streets being member of a city". I think that (at least for this moment) the OSM way of answering these questions would be simply to say "find all ways with piste tags within an (ski resort) area" or "find all ways with highway tags within a (city) area". --Shernott 12:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Accepted?

Can we consider this proposal accepted? If so, would it be possible to redirect page Tag:route=ski to Tag:route=piste? --Solitone 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, formally it didn't leave the state of a RFC, it was never voted on so far. There is no opposition, most people seem to find it reasonable, and its usage shows an acceptance in the field. I described route=piste in such a way that route=ski would be a subset of it, but simply hijacking and redirecting Tag:route=ski might be a bit out of line. I'm not too familiar with the voting formalities and especially with the tricks of campaigning, ie. how to mobilize the people who care about this proposal and want to use it. Does anyone following this discussion know how to go about this? --Shernott 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki proposals only work as instigators of discussion, to find out the possible problems. What really matters is just

• usage by mappers
• use by data consumers.

FWIW, up here in Finland we seem to use route=piste, when there's is an identifiable route, and not just some random groomed cross country skiing trails - aka piste:grooming=* and piste:type=nordic on the ways. These are, btw, not necessarily "in a winter sport area" as the valuedescription template box on the right reads, but everywhere where people can utilize their skis. Alv 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Using a Relation with route=piste to combine different ways with highway=* into one logical unit is how it was meant to be. The Relation is also useful if several different pistes share the same way segment, but otherways there wouldn't be a reason to use a Relation. For one single randomly groomed piste you could just use a single and continuous way. Which makes me wonder who is using route=piste on ways instead of relations and what kind of meaning should be implied by that kind of usage.

I removed the constraint "in a winter sport area" and agree with you about the importance of "usage by mappers" and "use by data consumers". Personally, I don't care much for the voting formalities either, but if there is a wish to confirm this proposal by a vote, I'm not opposed to that. I just wouldn't want to see this proposal shut down by a bunch of people who don't care about it and just happen to drop by while the vote is open, which is why I was asking for the best way to get the attention of those people who do care. --Shernott 11:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Grepping from a route=ski query to Overpass API gives me a list of 257 users to contact using this tag on relations. I can send the list to anyone wishing to contact them via the internal email system. Maybe this one should discuss with the sysadmins for the opportunity of a mass-mailing, or do it by hand. At the same time, this one should ask the users if they are OK somebody re-tag their relations in the DB. Any taker ? (I don't).

Because now, as one can see, there is 3x more route=ski than route=piste in the db ... --Yvecai 18:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this will get a bit more complicated than simply re-tagging. While I'm unsure about what users who use route=piste on ways instead of relations want to tell us with that, I have seen the use of route=ski on ways in places, where the user obviously intended to point out a typical route for a ski-tour (à la peau de phoque). In those places that I know I have cleaned things up myself. Doing this with a script might turn out to be tricky, because even when route=ski is used on relations, there might be some "special interpretations" that do make sense when the value "ski" is used, but not with the value "piste". Whoever wants to go ahead and consolidate things by contacting those users has my blessing, but personally I don't consider it a priority either. --Shernott 20:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

A related question is how to map underlaying ways if they don't exist in summer. In that case there is no appropriate highway=* tagging. I would suggest using highway=piste. This makes a clear distinction between relation (route=piste) and underlying way (highway=piste) tagging. --Kaspi 09:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to such thing as a highway=piste, there is ways tagged with piste:type=*. see Piste_Maps--Yvecai (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)