[OSM-talk-be] [hiking] OSM Pff several hours working on this...

[Marc Gemis]

Frank pointed me to a page where it is mentioned that you can add the
oneway=yes on the relation for the route. That is no problem of course.

regards

m

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:30 PM, André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Usually, hiking routes are designed to be walked in a single direction
>> (the signs are not well visible in the other) and that can be stressed with
>> oneway=yes.
>
>
> Que ? Are you placing oneway=yes on footpaths ? Since a walking route is
> something on-top of existing paths, it is wrong to add oneway on the path.
> One can take the path in the other direction when one does not follow the
> signposted route. By putting oneway=yes on the path you just block that
> possibility for a navigation device.
> This would be the same as putting a oneway=yes on a street, just because a
> bus route is only going in one direction through that street, while it is a
> two-way street.
>
> One of the relation pages you mention links to
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route where the roles of the
> members are explained. Forward & backward are mentioned there.
>
> One can also use http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation to verify the
> correctness of a relation. Fill in the number (4225213 from Andrés example)
>
> regards
>
> m
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20141203/8a9127c8/attachment.htm>