[Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Fernando Trebien fernando.trebien at gmail.com
Tue Jan 9 11:49:29 UTC 2018


Very well. It seems to me that a role such as "route" in PTv1 exists
only for clarity, as it would be equivalent to an empty role. Could we
say that "forward" also can be optionally added in PTv2 for clarity?

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:34 AM, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> in PTv1, one relation is used for all forward and backward route.
> therefore ways that is in use only in one-way route must have
> forward/backward role.
>
> in PTv2, the previous relation is splited in 2 relations. one with all
> ways used in forward, another with all way used in backward (and we
> group together with a route_master).
> therefore all way have a empty role (= no need to put all with forward,
> it's always the case in PTv2)
>
> yes maybe that should be better explain in the wiki
>
> Le 09. 01. 18 à 12:22, Fernando Trebien a écrit :
>> The article on route relations [1] doesn't make any distinction
>> between PT versions regarding those member roles. If the answer would
>> be different in each case, then I'd like to make the difference
>> explicit in the wiki, at least while PTv1 is still acceptable
>> (probably for a long time).
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Are we talking about the PTv1 or the PTv2 schema here?
>>>
>>> On 09/01/18 08:50, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> A user recently questioned me about adding members with role "forward"
>>>> to subway routes in my area. It is my understanding that, if the route
>>>> runs in a single direction, this is allowed and desirable [1].
>>>> However, specific articles [2][3] on different types of railways seem
>>>> to suggest that the role should be always empty, and I believe this is
>>>> misleading. Does anybody oppose adding these roles to these articles
>>>> as well?
>>>>
>>>> Other such articles currently do not mention relation member roles
>>>> [4], maybe they should.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members
>>>> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dsubway#Members
>>>> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtram#Members
>>>> [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtrain
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."



More information about the Tagging mailing list