[Tagging] Forward/backward routes

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Aug 19 14:37:35 UTC 2019

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 08:20 Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:34 AM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Keeping linear main route and alteratives separate is actually quite
> straightforward and much less work than creating and maintaining routes
> with roles. Especially when the forward/backward roles do not indicate the
> direction of travel, as is the case with bicycle routes.
> The 'forward' and 'backward' roles are well defined. At least two
> editors that I've used understand them. JOSM appears to sort them
> correctly. (It does stumble a bit in the special case where a
> route=road ends at junction among dual carriageways, because it cannot
> find a single endpoint.)  We seem to have this problem mostly solved.
> I disagree with the 'much less work' when you're maintaining a route
> that's hundreds of km long, follows dedicated trails or rural roads
> most of the way, but once in a while enters a city and splits because
> of one-way streets. Maintaining separate 'forward' and 'backward'
> relations for the whole thing would be quite annoying.

Depends.  I prefer to split to separate forward and backward relations when
the number of members gets to be extremely large or when either or both
ends of a route is not single carriageway, because it gets to be a real
pain in the butt to validate and maintain otherwise.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190819/3c734188/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list