[Tagging] Clarification on the role link in route relations

[Peter Elderson]

stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>:

> I remain a bit unsure of why specific distinctions between recreational
> and non-recreational bike routes are strictly necessary...


Not necessary. It's about fixed routes, signposted as such. Recreation is
the main purpose, but increasingly there are other purposes, e.g. preferred
cycle routes for commuters. Since Nederland is bound to be Nedersea in the
not-so-far future, I expect routes for boat commuters to emerge. (Joking?
Not sure...)

In Germany, some mappers want to adapt route relation mapping according to
purpose, for rendering and for routing/navigation.  In Belgium and
Nederland such routes are popping up too, in and around cities. An extra
tag on the relation can handle that; different roles for members do not
seem necessary.

-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220111/112676bc/attachment.htm>