On Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 08:20 Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:34 AM Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Keeping linear main route and alteratives separate is actually quite > straightforward and much less work than creating and maintaining routes > with roles. Especially when the forward/backward roles do not indicate the > direction of travel, as is the case with bicycle routes. > > The 'forward' and 'backward' roles are well defined. At least two > editors that I've used understand them. JOSM appears to sort them > correctly. (It does stumble a bit in the special case where a > route=road ends at junction among dual carriageways, because it cannot > find a single endpoint.) We seem to have this problem mostly solved. > > I disagree with the 'much less work' when you're maintaining a route > that's hundreds of km long, follows dedicated trails or rural roads > most of the way, but once in a while enters a city and splits because > of one-way streets. Maintaining separate 'forward' and 'backward' > relations for the whole thing would be quite annoying. > Depends. I prefer to split to separate forward and backward relations when the number of members gets to be extremely large or when either or both ends of a route is not single carriageway, because it gets to be a real pain in the butt to validate and maintain otherwise. >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
