<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 21, 2020, 04:34 by 61sundowner@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On 20/5/20 10:49 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK<br></div><div>(but oif unwanted - feel free to revert)<br></div><div><br></div><div>At least for me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about<br></div><div>and clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns<br></div><div>(as such complicated routes are highly unusual in my region)<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hummm...<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Why is one excluded where the other is not? Is that is going to be difficult to explain in a simple way?<br></div></blockquote><div>Black trail in <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Dead_end_hiking_route.png">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Dead_end_hiking_route.png</a> is<br></div><div>a completely separate trail.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If it would be signed as a part of green trail, then it ways would get "excursion" roie.<br></div><div>But as it is a separate one its ways are having either blank or "main" role.<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>