[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Michael Behrens mfbehrens99 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 8 13:21:53 UTC 2019


I fully agree with this argument and I also wrote a comment on the Wiki
Talk page.

What do you thing about using main:forward, main:backward,
alternative:forward and alternative:backward.

Another problem is that whenever there the main trail has a forward or
backward we automatically have two main trails what could be considered as
alternative. However now you can still create a elevation profile from the
main route. One for forward and one for backwards.

Michael

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, 10:48 Mateusz Konieczny, <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191208/c44634e8/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list