[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

[Peter Elderson]

you could define oneway=yes to be applicable to the main route. Sounds logical to me, i think most hikers would assume that. 
I think long excursions, branches and alternate routes are better maintained as separate relations. It's a separate discussion if these all need to be put into a 'collection' route relation. 

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:36 heeft Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
>> On 07/12/19 14:09, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson <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...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191207/47cea8cf/attachment.html>