[OSM-newbies] Route Relations questions - spurs and temporary diversions .

[ianmac nz]

I am updating a route relation and have some questions:

The route (route = mtb) is continuous and I have positioned the ways
correctly in the relation so there are no "gaps" in the ordering. However
some complicating factors exist. There are some "spurs" or sidetracks that
come off the main trail to access camp sites and from time to time
temporary diversions are in place for the trail due to logging,
maintenance, mining activity.

1)  Should the spurs mapped with the same relation, and if so where should
they be positioned in the relation. At present I have them at the final
positions to avoid creating gaps. Is that common practice?

2) What is the suggested practice to map temporary diversions? I am
conscious of not wanting to map for the renderer, but want to indicate the
temporary nature of the diversion.

   Some options I have considered

    a)  Access = no on the closed ways and retain the existing route
relation (e.g. "Trail X")  and add the exiting route relation added to the
temporary diversions. If this is the case where should these additions be
positioned/ordered in the relation.

   b) Access = no on the closed ways, and add a new route relation (e.g.
"Trail X -Temp Diversion") to the temporary diversions.

    c) Remove the existing relation from the closed ways, and add them to
the temporary diversions, then when the diversion is no longer in place
undo this change.

Can anyone point out pros/cons with the above, offer alternatives or share
their experience on how deal with these scenarios. Specific examples
(especially related to cycle routes) would be very helpful.


Ian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20140410/bacaaeca/attachment.html>