piste:difficulty for whole route and/or single segments?
The JSOM preset https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets/SkiingTrail is exclusively for routes (not ways) and tells for piste:difficulty EN: Used for the relevant sections only. DE: Nur betroffene Teilstücke taggen. Questions by --Schoschi (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- To my understanding, one ski route itself shall have exactly one overall piste:difficulty value, while the single parts/segments (which are usually ways) shall have their own piste:difficulty values. Like this, one can choose a suiting route quickly (only 1 value has to be checked) and then refine into details of it's segments, e.g. choose the best suiting variant of the route or learn how long a too difficult part is that one would need to walk. How is your point of view onto this?
- Is it possible to store the different difficulties of the single segments in the realtion? I would not even know how to do so.
- Is it desirable to store the different difficulties of the single segments in the realtion? IMHO not as this means redundant storage: A segment's difficulty has to be stored + maintained in multiple routes that use the same segment, while only once when difficulty is stored in the ways that make up the route.
I think this is not consistent with other way-tags. The route tag should only be used with route-relations.
--Langläufer 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The use of route=ski is limited to pistes with piste:type=nordic/alpine. Of course routes of other piste types like snowshoe trails, sledding pistes, or ski tours could be tagged with separate new route tags, e.g. route=snowshoe, route=sled, and route=skitour. However the use of route=piste for all of them is simpler, more logical and consistent with the Piste Maps Proposal, which proposes to use the key piste:type=* for all of them. --Shernott 15:42, 22 September 2010 (BST)
- +1, I agree as well! But.. what's the state of the proposed route=piste? Can we consider it accepted? --Solitone 15:46, 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 16:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"Network" for ski routes
I strongly disagree with the sentence: network=* ... makes no sense here. At least in Norway there are a lot of long-distance ski routes (> 7d) that would deserve a network=rsn. Taginfo currently counts 3 of them (plus 53 "network=lsn, which actually is the default). I would propose to declare the respective quadruple for ski routes: lsn, rsn, nsn, isn (well, actually the last two are a bit theoretic ...). BTW: The same extension is urgently needed for node points on ski networks: network=lsn_ref. --GerdHH (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)