I like Sarah's proposal too, especially for walking routes. I'm not sure it would work for complex PT routes, where routability is involved.
One issue: a route relation can be a route on it's own AND part of a longer route (or node network), on any level of the hierarchy. segment=yes would not cover that, I think? And when naming parts, you'll have to cover the case that a route can be part of multiple longer routes, the route itself may contain smaller parts that are also part of multiple routes. Parts can have any of the network tags. This complication is not created by Sarah's idea, but I would like to see that solved too. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 15 mrt. 2019 om 14:26 schreef Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net >: > marc marc wrote: > > imho nearly no routing tools (nor foot nor bus) is currently > > able to use a relation type=route with relations as child. > > cycle.travel can. > > I don't particularly care what's decided, but I would like it to be > consistent (which right now it certainly isn't), and personally I don't see > the need for type=superroute when you can just have relations as children > of > type=route. I like Sarah's proposal for route_segment=yes. > > Richard > > > > -- > Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
