[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sun Dec 8 10:46:47 UTC 2019

What about routes that have oneway segments, without paths having a legal restrictions
on direction of walking?

6 Dec 2019, 19:28 by janjko at gmail.com:

> I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation. Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion it is said that if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch, then all the ways in a branch should be checked to see if the whole branch is oneway. But that means we are doing the work of a router directly in the tags.
> We should just mark "oneway" ways as such, and leave the rest to the routers.
> Also, "main" and "alternative" are orthogonal to "forward" and "backward". We should then have "main:forward", "alternative:backward", and so on. That doesn't make sense, and is not what "role" is traditionally used for. Public transport routes used to use them, but not in the new scheme.
> Janko

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191208/b8484b46/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list