Talk:Relation:superroute

Can superroutes also contain superroutes?

Can superroutes also contain superroutes? And are routes allowed to contain other routes and is there any use for superroutes then anymore? The documentation for superroutes is very bad. This needs to change! --Mfbehrens99 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If a type=superroute has the same characteristics as a type=route, I would say a superroute is not a special type of route but simply a term for a route relation containing other route relations. In this way, you can say that a superroute can contain other superroutes, but it does not need a special tag.--Peter Elderson (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not ! Don't add superroute to superroute ! Create a supersuperroute for that ! And why not also infraroute for parts or section of routes and pararoute for variants, and metaroute for guideposts and other stuff ?

I don't like superroute that is nothing else than route containing route. However the route makes the job well. In fact, they are roles for precising the role : role:from, role:to, role:variant, role:main... Use route as contained route and also ascontainer route and all will be right.

Superroute is a mess. I hope some day superroute would disappear as it is definitely not useful. And the sky would be clearer FrViPofm (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

JOSM uses the tag for the continuity line/check in the relation editor. In a route, it just checks the continuity of the ways. In a superroute it checks that the relation members connect, meaning the last node of the last way of a member relation is the same as the first node of the first way of the member relation. I use that a lot. It's of no use when the supperroute is more like a collection of alternatives sharing ref, name, operator and/or symbol. A mess? I would say, long distance routes IRL are a mess, and superroutes solve only a tiny part of that. Deprecating the superroute type solves nothing. A better definition, allowing data users to build on it, would help. --Peter Elderson (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say, long distance routes IRL are a mess Sure ! :-) And official versions and existing versions of the Camino de Santiago with debates between mappers... And managing variants... And... (I started mapping the Camino long time ago with a Garmin GPS)

superroutes solve only a tiny part of that better to say superoute as managed actually in JOSM solves only a tiny part of that

If it is the only interest of the superroute, I'm convinced that the JOSM developer can do the same job with route and role:main members as we do not tag for the renderers neither for the tools. And JOSM could exploite the point you just developed on the wiki page The values of the superroute are not necessarily the same as for the member routes. This can be the same between route container and route contained. And JOSM could take advantage of it. I develop below...

When I was working on the heritage=* proposal, I have chosen to keep the hierarchy of political boundary levels : 1, 2, 3 as level of classification. And the meaning seems obvious for every body... It could be the same for routes. Instead of icn, iwn, ncn, nwn, rcn, rwn, lcn, lwn... (and ihn... for horses ? And with some redundancy between the [c|w] and the route=* and with no obvious order between i, n, r, l), it could be cleverer to have a route=* (already in good use) with whatever value (hiking, inline_skate, waterway, camel, train) and a network level from 0 to 10 where the French GR (Grande randonnée) are of level 2, the Camino at level 0, the locals (organized at municipality level) with level=8, the Wonderful Circuit in the Something Park or Parcours de santé, Chemin de Croix at level=10 or more... With the help of good tags and roles, we can do a lot, and stronger. JOSM and Waymarked Trails could manage it very easily.

And what for variants in supperroute ? Not allowed because of JOSM ?

But the icn, iwn tags are very used... Ok ! Let's take the time before deprecating all that stuff. I hope some day... I said. But we can introduce the change now.

Like tags, roles are a treasure of OSM relations but under exploited. Maybe we have to improve them and clarify them on the Relation:route page. The data are very poor on relation : nothing on roles on the route element.

(It' me or... The wiki seems very, very, very slow... I get errors on loading pages) FrViPofm (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

network

Currently, the page states: a European cycling superroute will be tagged network=icn, while its members are usually network=ncn routes or superroutes. I do not (necessarily) agree, a member within a country is still part of the european network and not just a national or local route, at least this is not clear from network=* and should be discussed. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)