[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

[Peter Elderson]

Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>:

> Michael Behrens:
>
>
> There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations
>
> I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way members
> only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker, etc.).  This
> may be deliberate, or you just haven't expanded it yet, but I'd definitely
> mention node members.
>
>  Also, i guess backward and forward roles are for ways only, the other
roles are more suited for relation members. Or not? Could I enter all the
ways of a 3 Km  medieval castle excursion to a viewpoint into the hiking
relation holding the ways of the main route, each with the 'excursion'
role? I think this should be explicit.

It seems to me that use of these roles leads to relations containing
non-contiguous trails. I would call those relations collections rather than
routes. Processing non-contiguous routes presents extra challenges for
processing such as exporting routes and making elevation profiles.

______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191206/21a363d7/attachment.html>