On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:57 PM Sarah Hoffmann <lon...@denofr.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > (making this a new topic) > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I strongly prefer to have one relation for the main route, and separate > relations for alternatives. Put those together in a relation with roles for > the member relations, not for individual ways. So the lowest level always > contains only ways, the higher level contains only relations. > > Using subrelations is not consistent with the current use of > forward/backward roles. > I'd consider alternatives, excursions and access routes to be equivalent > to those. > > By doing that, you're basically saying that alternatives can't have forward/backward roles. To me that doesn't make sense. We are using those forward/backward roles to indicate that there are 2 branches for each direction of travel along the route. This could easily happen along an alternative part of the route as well. Polyglot
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
