you could define oneway=yes to be applicable to the main route. Sounds logical to me, i think most hikers would assume that. I think long excursions, branches and alternate routes are better maintained as separate relations. It's a separate discussion if these all need to be put into a 'collection' route relation.
Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:36 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende > geschreven: > > >> On 07/12/19 14:09, Andrew Harvey wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>> I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's >>>> signposted for one direction. >>> >>> >>> I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g. >>> sign_direction=forward/backward/both >>> >>> pedestrian_oneway=yes >>> or maybe >>> >>> oneway:foot=yes >> >> Where it's a restriction on the walking path, then oneway=yes on the way, >> when it's a restriction on the route a oneway=yes on the route is the way to >> go. > > If oneway=yes is placed on a route relation then any excursions and > appropriate approaches will have to be separate relations. Meaning there will > have to be a super relation to combine them... > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
