[Tagging] Clarification on the role link in route relations

[Dave F]

On 08/01/2022 21:02, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> This is a high enough number that it can't be dismissed as a mere 
> tagging mistake, yet it falls far short of the 766,473 
> highway=motorway_link ways, let alone other highway=*_link ways. [8]

I think there maybe a misunderstanding of the difference between route 
relations & ways upon which route relations are placed.

The link role of a route relation can be placed on *any* way. It's 
commonly used as an indicator for 'this is the way to go to get to the 
route' and not just connections between different routes.
In the UK National Cycle Routes have signs for this with the ref number 
in brackets. (Roads also have this scheme, but IMO roads determined by 
their reference numbers are not valid route relations)

> Meanwhile, the inclusion of "link" members causes problems for any 
> editor, QA tool, or data consumer that lacks support for this role 
> when determining the linear progression of a route.

If they 'lack support' for the route role, how can it  causes problems' 
for them?
The OSM database is 'as is'. If there's a problem in data consuming 
software using the database then you need to contact the software's 
developers to let them know about /their/ problem.

> For example, iD has a known issue...

iD editor has many known inaccuracies. It's very frustrating having to 
fix incorrect data added by it, especially it's validation system


DaveF