[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Warin]

On 20/5/20 10:49 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal.
>
> I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK
> (but oif unwanted - feel free to revert)
>
> At least for me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about
> and clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns
> (as such complicated routes are highly unusual in my region)
>

Hummm...


The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main 
route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.

Why is one excluded where the other is not? Is that is going to be 
difficult to explain in a simple way?