<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
sent from a phone<br>
<span class=""><br>
> Am 11.11.2015 um 08:48 schrieb Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>>:<br>
><br>
> Where I have run into issues that make it difficult to tell if the relation is correct is when a route ends on a dual carriageway on one or both ends with at least one central segment being a two-way single carriageway. In this case, the simplest fix seems to be to create a super-relation, and then add a child relation for each direction with a role of a cardinal direction, and have all the ways in the child directions have a role of forward or backward as appropriate, and tag the relation direction=west, for example (this is already how Interstates, which are, AFAICT, always fully divided).<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>+1, this is also done for bus routes for instance<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Pet peeve with this, though I expect this will be alleviated with time, people tagging east/west as roles on <i>ways</i> instead of child relations. </div></div></div></div>