[Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Tue May 29 04:26:57 UTC 2018


It's not about the 'gear'. It's about the vehicle needing to do something
that, as far as I'm concerned, is totally unexpected on a bus route. If
they put the gear in neutral and had some slaves/volunteers there that
pushed the bus backwards (and a supervisor checking they don't run anybody
over), the situation would be exactly the same (OK, that would be even more
unexpected).

Can we make do without such a role? Sure we can. I wanted to be explicit,
rather than implicit.

It's not crucial, maybe I should just drop proposing it. Good thing I
didn't waste time describing it on the wiki then.

Jo

2018-05-29 6:04 GMT+02:00 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:

>
>
> 2018-05-29 1:09 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>:
>
>> Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary
>> mini-roundabout at the end of the cul-de-sac?
>>
>> That way the router would think that the bus drives in, goes round the
>> roundabout, then drives out again.
>>
>> Include a note that the roundabout doesn't actually exist, but is only
>> shown for this reason, so that other mappers don't then keep deleting it!
>>
>
> I really fail to see why would have to add data that doesn't exist,
> instead of describing exactly what is happening.
>
> We're talking abtout PT v2.
>
> This is the route relation:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/
> 7620346
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180529/5d633baf/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list