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

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:31, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> Thanks for doing this!
>
>
> The excursion description is
>
> "A signposted side track which rejoins at roughly the same point where
> it left, usually to visit a point of interest."
>
> That would exclude a track that 'rejoins' at exactly the same point.
>
> Most of the ones I have come across are simple single track that go to
> the 'point of interest' and return is along the same track.
>
>
> Suggest?
>
> "A signposted track which leads to one or more point/s of interests. The
> return maybe along the same track or a different track provided it
> rejoins very close to point where the main track was left. Examples are
> tracks that lead to a view, drinking water, a campsite, a toilet."
>
> More verbose, but there it is.
>

Also discussed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
where
I suggested not defining it as visiting a point of interest, but rather by
the topology alone. Otherwise people could confuse an alternate route which
visits POIs as an excursion, or not think it's an excursion just because it
doesn't visit a POI.

I read "rejoins at roughly the same point" as including returning at
exactly the same point, ie. meaning anywhere within a rough radius
including the point itself. You could for clarity say "which rejoins at
either the same point or roughly the same point where it left".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/4ced872f/attachment.htm>