I fully agree with this argument and I also wrote a comment on the Wiki Talk page.
What do you thing about using main:forward, main:backward, alternative:forward and alternative:backward. Another problem is that whenever there the main trail has a forward or backward we automatically have two main trails what could be considered as alternative. However now you can still create a elevation profile from the main route. One for forward and one for backwards. Michael On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, 10:48 Mateusz Konieczny, <matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > What about routes that have oneway segments, without paths having a legal > restrictions > on direction of walking? > > 6 Dec 2019, 19:28 by jan...@gmail.com: > > I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation. > Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion it is said > that if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch, then all the ways > in a branch should be checked to see if the whole branch is oneway. But > that means we are doing the work of a router directly in the tags. > > We should just mark "oneway" ways as such, and leave the rest to the > routers. > > Also, "main" and "alternative" are orthogonal to "forward" and "backward". > We should then have "main:forward", "alternative:backward", and so on. That > doesn't make sense, and is not what "role" is traditionally used for. > Public transport routes used to use them, but not in the new scheme. > > Janko > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
