Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)

Not sure about the beltway example, but I prefer having one relation for each direction of a highway and then a super relation to tie those two together. That avoids the issues you pointed out earlier where one direction may take a slip/link while the other direction does not. It also makes it

[Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)

I know that north/south/east/west directions are preferred for relation roles of one-way route segments (e.g. one-way pairs or divided highways), but what about clockwise and counterclockwise? Often beltways, like D.C.'s Capital Beltway, are signed such that they abruptly go from north/south to

[Talk-us] Relation roles for two-way way segments carrying routes in a single direction

So I understand that one-way ways carrying a route (e.g. a one-way pair or divided highway) should have relation roles of north/south/east/west, but say you have a situation like this. Say you have an east-west route that follows the primary roads in that picture. The eastbound direction