Talk:Proposed features/Route=Worship

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Pilgrimage is the same

Please look here: pilgrimage=yes.

We already have the offered feature: route=*(=any kind of hiking or transportation) + pilgrimage=yes

This tagging is able to specify a vehicle, but your proposal isn't.

alternate proposal

(take from my updated User:Waldhans/Stations of the Cross site) Major difference is the handling of the relations!

Individual stations

key value (example) req/opt note
amenity place_of_worship req
historic wayside_shrine req or wayside_cross, plaque
religion christian req
denomination roman_catholic req I think that's required
name Vorster Kreuzweg 8 req
tags from 'historic=wayside_shrine'
description pfeilerartigen Aufbau aus Werksteinquadern opt describe the architecture
inscription Veronika reicht Jesus das Schweißtuch opt more or less standard
image //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons ... opt image of this object
start_date 1704 opt
if the individual object is part of a heritage list
heritage 8 req
heritage:operator UntereDenkmalbehörde req
heritage:ref 37 req number in the list
heritage:website //www.viersen.de/C125704A0030C552 ... opt

Relation

Gather all stations and the way; will normally start/end at a church;

If only the stations are known, use a site relation; If the pilgrimage way is known, add these ways and use type=route and route=hiking.

The common tag to identify a Stations of the Cross will be worship=stations_of_the_cross

Relation Type

key value req/opt note
type site req shown on Historical Objects map
OR
type route req
route hiking req shown on Waymarked Trails and on Historical Objects map

common to both types:

key value (example) req/opt note
worship stations_of_the_cross req unique handle e.g. for Overpass
historic place_of_worship req handle for Historical Objects map
name Vorster Kreuzweg opt
religion christian req
denomination roman_catholic req
pilgrimage yes opt
wikipedia opt

Members

role seems unnecessary; keep the locations sorted (first is start, last is end); sort the ways in the same direction

--Waldhans (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorting will not always do the job.
1. ways: Whenever someone splits one of the ways, there's a 50% chance to spoil the order. And whenever a route includes branches (either route variations or what we call Stichweg in German), there's no obvious sort order.
multiple routes => use super or network relation; well established; and any simple route can be sorted! --Waldhans (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
2. stations: When one station is missing (e.g. Relation 1899920 (XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx), the station number cannot be automatically determined. When a station consists of two or more objects (e.g. 2 crosses, or a cross and a sculpture), the numbers cannot be determined either. When a station is mapped as something other than a node, it cannot even be recognized as a station.
Everythink works when you specify roles.
--Fkv (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
no/yes: missing/superfluous stations are no problem, you will still get the correct order from start to end; no problem if you pray twice at station 4; I already accepted the problem with building outlines; please make a proposal to handle this case --Waldhans (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

These are hiking routes

I know many of these routes, and all of them are hiking routes. Therefore, I have always been using route=hiking, and others have done it the same way. The introduction of a new route=* tag would only complicate matters. However, we should try to find some consensus on the subtags. E.g. religion=* seems fine. I am not sure about pilgrimage=*. I would not consider someone a pilgrim who walks some 100 metres to pass some crosses. A typical pilgrimage route takes some days or weeks, or even months. On the other hand, a new worship=* key might be redundant to pilgrimage=* to some degree, as the latter is not limited to "yes" values. --Fkv (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

route=hiking +1
I don't mind using pilgrimage=stations_of_the_cross instead of worship=stations_of_the_cross, I only would like to define a unique,fixed k-v pair. --Waldhans (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Roles

As opposed to Waldhans, I consider role names essential. Node members may be ignored by applications, but linear members such as buildings need to be distinguished from the members that represent the route course. And in the long term, we don't want stations to be ignored, but to show up as stations.

I use the "station" role for crosses, chapels, etc., and the "information" role for info boards, guideposts etc. Example: Relation 4556368 (XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) The "station" and "information" roles can also be used for fitness parcours etc.

One nasty problem is the station number. I put it into ref=* of the member object, but station #1 of route A might at the same time be station #5 of route B. So it would be cleaner to put the number in the role names, i.e. to call them like "station1", "station2" etc., although that would make an unlimited number of role names, which is quite unusual in OSM relations. --Fkv (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was looking for a simple schema consistent with existing applications and QA tools. Mixing (building outline) ways with highways breaks e.g. the OSM Relation Analyzer. The numbering problem results from including the information boards. This is not part of the proposal and I think a overview map can't be seen as place_of_worship. --Waldhans (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
OSM Relation Analyzer seems to work fine with my relations, see my example above. waymarkedtrails.org is ok too, as is wanderreitkarte.org (both online and Garmin maps) - see http://www.wanderreitkarte.de/forum/thread.php?board=1&thema=146).
Concerning numbering: On stations-of-the-cross trails, I number the crosses/shrines/chapels, not the boards. I do number boards on some educational trails. I don't think that ordering the relation members can do the job. I'll explain in your proposal section.
--Fkv (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
wrong: try your own link to relation 4556368: OSM Relation Analyzer : "Split into several pieces: For this relation type it is required that it exists as one piece.". --Waldhans (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Move Page from "proposed" to new page "Stations of the Cross"

Hi IIVQ, hi Waldhans, your ideas are at a point where you should put them on a prominent position in OSM-Wiki, so that a consistent tagging of these ways becomes more common.

Imho this proposal page is not needed anymore since the "Stations of the Cross" can be described with the existing tagging (route=hiking/site) as suggested by Waldhans. Then no voting is needed.

Also, route=worship as well as route=pilgrimage (14 times on taginfo) should not be used as a new route-tag any longer but rather transformed to the existing tagging route=hiking + pilgrimage=yes

Or even better: Instead of pilgrimage=yes use of pilgrimage=stations_of_the_cross (just like pilgrimage=Camino_de_Santiago) which will make the worship tag redundant (only 8 times on taginfo) and make Stations of the Cross identifiable. (A pilgrimage can be done by foot or other means and is not of a minimum length.) Note that in Slovenia 4 relations have been named "pilgrimage=Calvaria" which describe the same type of way. In Croatia I would assume that these routes are called similarly. In Czec they are called pilgrimage=krizovacesta (8 times on taginfo). Your discussion about how and whether to give roles could be solved in a following step.

As shown, at this point not much tagging has been done. Start a new page (Stations of the Cross, Kreuzweg, Calvaria) and promotion in the forum and on How_To_Tag_A etc. Without any new tags (except for pilgrimage=stations_of_the_cross) a consistent type of tagging should easily become common. Cepesko