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

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

It should depend if it's signposted as part of the route or not, since this
tagging only applies to signposted routes. If there is an excursion or
alternative route that isn't signposted as part of the route then it
shouldn't be included in the relation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/e2cca585/attachment.htm>