[Tagging] ref:forward and ref:backward?
voschix at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 15:03:52 UTC 2017
I was advocating forward/backward on bicycle routes, but with the
appearance of so many roundabouts and one-way streets in agglomerations (at
least here in Italy), I now tend to suggest the two-relations approach. Off
course, the two approaches can coexist.
On 12 January 2017 at 15:55, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
> The 2 or more relations for each variation is the way to go for Public
> Transport routes. Walking and bicycle routes use the forward and backward
> roles to describe both directions in one route relation.
> 2017-01-12 15:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
>> 2017-01-12 6:40 GMT+01:00 <roadsguy99 at gmail.com>:
>>> I certainly use route relations, and since ref is only really used for
>>> the renderer, I don’t know what I was thinking ref:forward and ref:backward
>>> would be useful for…
>> Tagging considerations are not "for the renderer", it's about how the
>> world can be abstracted to be stored in such a way that the information you
>> are interested in can be found in the data.
>> Regarding the "forward" and "backward" roles for way members of routes:
>> they refer to the direction of the way (member), not to the direction of
>> the relation. If you want to map a route which goes from A to B it will
>> typically be different from a route that goes from B to A (because of dual
>> carriage ways and other (even short) oneway roads (like links, ramps) ,
>> etc.), and the solution is to map 2 routes and eventually connect them with
>> a route master.
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging