On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:16:46 -0400, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my notes, the plan is: > > (1) Put oneway=yes on the route relation, not on the ways. > (2) Add the ways to the route relation in their proper sequence. > (3) Give the ways the 'forward' or 'backward' role according to > the direction that the waymarked route follows. Thank you for the reply, Kevin. Using forward/backward roles on the members of the relation is also how I did it once on a route relation I added once: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8974019 > There isn't any 'clockwise' or 'counterclockwise'; the relation reads > from start to end, and indicates which way it runs on each way it > visits. The fact that the end node is the same as the start node is > enough to make it circular. Would this make you conclude that the sentence "proposal: It might be useful to indicate if the route is marked in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction, i.e. oneway=cw or oneway=ccw. " on the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking is not necessary, confusing and can be removed? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
