<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left">What about routes that have oneway segments, without paths having a legal restrictions<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">on direction of walking?<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">6 Dec 2019, 19:28 by janjko@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation. Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion it is said that if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch, then all the ways in a branch should be checked to see if the whole branch is oneway. But that means we are doing the work of a router directly in the tags.<br></div><div><br></div><div>We should just mark "oneway" ways as such, and leave the rest to the routers.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Also, "main" and "alternative" are orthogonal to "forward" and "backward". We should then have "main:forward", "alternative:backward", and so on. That doesn't make sense, and is not what "role" is traditionally used for. Public transport routes used to use them, but not in the new scheme.<br></div></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div class="">Janko<br></div></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div> </body>
</html>