On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 19:09, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Harvey <[email protected]>, wrote: > > For these "routes" though there is no clear A to B, there will be short > segments which are obivously part of a route because there are arrows > directing cyclists, but sometimes these are just short segments to the next > intersection so it's unclear where the route goes from and to, hence why > someone has resorted to just dumping all the segments into one route > relation. > > > Exactly, so it’s not an A-B “route”, it’s a network, and should be in a > network relation rather than a route relation. > But which network relation should they be part of since they can link in all sorts of ways it's hard to say which gets grouped together. > The other alternative is to just put lcn=yes on the way (and indeed that’s > done in lots of other places). cycle.travel gives a small uplift to ways > tagged with that. > Yep, that's my personal preference where there is no obvious named route.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
