[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

[Warin]

On 07/12/19 14:09, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>     On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:pelderson at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say
>>     it's signposted for one direction.
>
>
>     I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g.
>     sign_direction=forward/backward/both
>
>     pedestrian_oneway=yes
>     or maybe
>
>     oneway:foot=yes
>
>
> Where it's a restriction on the walking path, then oneway=yes on the 
> way, when it's a restriction on the route a oneway=yes on the route is 
> the way to go.

If oneway=yes is placed on a route relation then any excursions and 
appropriate approaches will have to be separate relations. Meaning there 
will have to be a super relation to combine them...


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191207/ffc4b1d0/attachment.html>