[Tagging] Clarification on the role link in route relations

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 6:20 PM Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>
> Cheers. That way is an 'exit from', not a 'link to' so it shouldn't be a
>> member of the VT 15 relation. The roads heading to the V 15 should be
>> included with link roles.
>>
>
> You've contradicted yourself here.  First you say that way shouldn't be a
> member of the relation, and then you say it "should be included with link
> roles".  So it's not clear whether you favor including the ramps (with link
> roles) or whether you favor not making them members of the route relation.
>
>
> Those roads are *oneway*. The one heading *away* from the route shouldn't
> be included because it's *not* a link *towards* the route relation.
>

Still muddy.

Can you clarify the exact, specific circumstances, under which you feel
that a road should be included in a type=route, route=road relation with a
link role?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220113/c6b06bc0/attachment.htm>