[talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Warin]

On 10/9/22 11:34, Ewen Hill wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>    Firstly, thank you to you and the Munda Biddi (MB) elves for 
> providing an amazing 1000km cycling route, mainly off-road, sometimes 
> on ball bearings, other times on sand and the rest mainly on fire 
> trails and single track. It is an amazing asset and something that I 
> will cherish completing.
>
>    I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and 
> the other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route 
> which apart from one amazing hut that is smack bang in the middle of 
> the trail, are normally just off the trail on short spurs. Please note 
> that this route is not set in stone and sections are replaced on a 
> regular basis.
>
>   Where it started with two relationships of MB-Main and 
> MB-Alternative, I believe a master MB would be preferable containing 
> all the huts, spurs, winter/summer variations and the main route. 
> Where there is a spur like Collie (~16km?), an additional 
> MB-Collie-Spur might be worthwhile.
>
> Having a single master would allow users to easily extract the entire 
> route and huts in one go and prepare them for their garmin and 
> whatever GIS software they use.It would also give councils, emergency 
> services, tourism operators etc. easy access to all of the relevant 
> data.  I don't see the need to maintain any other spur relationships 
> unless the spur is ~> 2km as it's probably overkill and makes it more 
> complex to maintain.


The waymarker trails website uses the relation/s to generate a GPX file 
and an elevation display .. quite handy.

If all the huts are in there too .. I think it ignores nodes .. other 
than guide posts? Possibly it ignore them too.

It would be nice to have, yet more, roles for huts/campsites, toilets, 
water and a role for the trails leading to them.. At the moment these 
are not included in the relationship instructions .. so lack any support 
or organized thinking.

I don't know how easy it is to have all that in a simple GPX file .. the 
newer ones do have more features...

Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga 
line ... with the 'extras' off to the end ... that used to make 
following it easier?


I would think that one file will all the variations (north/south bound, 
season winter/summer) would be quite hard for the users to use and the 
maintainers to maintain... ???