While I’ve mapped a number of trails most of them are not part of a designated larger route so I am not 100% sure, but I think hiking routes are much like highway routes: The ways in the relation should be ordered.
Not sure why you’d need a node in there, especially without an explicit role. If the route ways are ordered it is obvious where the end points are. Cheers! > On May 3, 2018, at 5:06 AM, David Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, there. > > I recently worked a bit on hiking routes, and noticed that some routes have > unordered members. That's particularly noticeable on waymarkedtrails.org > <http://waymarkedtrails.org/>, as it makes the elevation graph rubbish and > useless. I read the relation:route wiki page, but there is only advice > regarding stops order, and not way members order. Shouldn't there be a note > on this page regarding the importance of sorting the ways to have a more > useful relation than only spaghettis? > > By the way, I saw some hiking relations having a node without explicit role, > seemingly as a start point; is it a generally accepted, used feature, or only > an idiosyncrasy? > > Awaiting your answers, > > Regards. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
