Proposal talk:Route=Worship
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.
- 2. stations: When one station is missing (e.g. 1899920
1899920, 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)
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: 4556368 4556368
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)
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