[Tagging] Route members: ordered or not

[Tod Fitch]

While I’ve mapped a number of trails most of them are not part of a designated larger route so I am not 100% sure, but I think hiking routes are much like highway routes: The ways in the relation should be ordered.

Not sure why you’d need a node in there, especially without an explicit role. If the route ways are ordered it is obvious where the end points are.

Cheers!

> On May 3, 2018, at 5:06 AM, David Marchal <Penegal at live.fr> wrote:
> 
> Hello, there.
> 
> I recently worked a bit on hiking routes, and noticed that some routes have unordered members. That's particularly noticeable on waymarkedtrails.org <http://waymarkedtrails.org/>, as it makes the elevation graph rubbish and useless. I read the relation:route wiki page, but there is only advice regarding stops order, and not way members order. Shouldn't there be a note on this page regarding the importance of sorting the ways to have a more useful relation than only spaghettis?
> 
> By the way, I saw some hiking relations having a node without explicit role, seemingly as a start point; is it a generally accepted, used feature, or only an idiosyncrasy?
> 
> Awaiting your answers,
> 
> Regards.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180503/0d17154f/attachment.html>