> From: Ewen Hill
> Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2022 9:35 AM
> To: Ian Steer
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
>
>I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and the
> other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route which a
>
> What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi master
> relation, containing only 3 sub-relations:
> 1. the existing relation containing the main route (including both north &
> south-bound one-way sections, plus the winter/summer routes)
> 2. a new
> "Munda Biddi Collie
On Sep 10, 2022, at 2:21 AM, Ian Steer wrote:
>> What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi
...
> - and I would give the winter section, and northbound one-way sections in the
> main route relation a role of “alternative"
Outstanding! I step further aside and let you maste
Ian,
That sounds like a plan and perhaps a final sub or a separate
relationship for the huts. I am still not 100% sure that the continuous
alignment will work overtime without Ian's eagle eye as other users not
aware of the MB can make significant changes.
Ewen
On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 19:59, st
> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 16:39:39 +1000
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
> Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga
line ...
> with the 'extras' off to the end
Again, you folks are on the right track, here: keep discussing whether a
single bidirectional route (with summer-winter alternates) is better, though
that will require very careful role tag management — OR whether a single
super-relation representing "the whole route, with all of its complexiti
6 matches
Mail list logo