Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>: > Michael Behrens: > > > There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations > > I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way members > only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker, etc.). This > may be deliberate, or you just haven't expanded it yet, but I'd definitely > mention node members. > > Also, i guess backward and forward roles are for ways only, the other roles are more suited for relation members. Or not? Could I enter all the ways of a 3 Km medieval castle excursion to a viewpoint into the hiking relation holding the ways of the main route, each with the 'excursion' role? I think this should be explicit.
It seems to me that use of these roles leads to relations containing non-contiguous trails. I would call those relations collections rather than routes. Processing non-contiguous routes presents extra challenges for processing such as exporting routes and making elevation profiles. ______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
