[Tagging] RFC - role values for members of recreational route relations.

[Peter Elderson]

The previous proposal of Hiking trail role values appears to be stuck. The
initiator has let me know that help would be appreciated. I then prepared a
much simpler concept proposal which IMO could pass, and asked his opinion.
So far he has not responded, but a helpful soul has moved my concept to
"proposed features", and another has added links between the two proposals.
The basics of the two are the same, there is no conflict, but the new
concept is much simpler.

Original proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
Concept proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles

* I have left out the forward and backward roles, because they conflict
with the way they are defined and used in bicycle route relations.
* I have left out all fancy ideas for other uses and roles. Once the basic
system is in place, additional roles can be discussed and passed later.
* I have added the connection role. It enables automated planning and
routing across different recreational routes and trails.
* I think all recreational routes can benefit from this role set, not just
hiking trails.
* The concept proposal does not require any forced changes to the
"installed base", but if applied will enable better rendering and
processing.

I am not looking for new ideas for more uses and roles. You are welcome to
vent them, but I will just keep them for later. I would like constructive
feedback on the proposal in order to get to the basic starting role set we
can agree on.

Shoot!

Best, Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200416/12086f75/attachment.htm>