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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

May 21, 2020, 04:34 by 61sundowner at gmail.com:

> 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?
>
Black trail in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Dead_end_hiking_route.png is
a completely separate trail.

If it would be signed as a part of green trail, then it ways would get "excursion" roie.
But as it is a separate one its ways are having either blank or "main" role.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/2f99fe1c/attachment-0001.htm>