[Tagging] Clarification on the role link in route relations

[Peter Elderson]

stevea:

> I simply must ask the question:  how one is expected to know if a cycle
> route is or isn't recreational?


Other routes can use the approved set of roles with the same meaning. The
term recreational was used to broadly indicate the scope (hiking, paddling,
horse riding, cycling, inline skating, motorboat). But not OV and road
routes, and other relation types, they have their own sets of roles.
Especially with cycling more and more signed routes are created for
non-recreational uses. Since these are structurally no different from the
recreational routes, it makes sense to use the same set of roles.

AFAIK, the roles are used by mappers, not yet by data users. The main use
would be to exclude "variant" members from the main route, for rendering,
routing and extras such as elevation profile and gpx production. And member
sorting in relation editing tools. Further use could be to render variants
differently; display and use the role in data popups, lists or hierarchies;
and in trip planning applications to suggest approaches, excursions, route
switching and variants.

All of this was not meant for motorway relations. If it would apply,
connection would be the role for a member that connects different routes,
e.g. A2 to A10, and the member would be in both relations. The approach
role would be used on a member representing, say, an approach: a way or a
route signposted to lead traffic to a motorway.

I get the impression that the link role limps between approach and
connection. Whether it is useful to add approaches and/or connections to
motorway relations, I don't know.
-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220111/4472c37b/attachment-0001.htm>