Request to support new roles when validating route relations.

[pelderson@…]

Five new roles have been approved for route relations. See ​osmwiki:Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles

The roles are: alternative, approach, excursion, connection, main.
No role is the same as main for data users, but the explicit value main is now an approved value.

Validation currently warns about roles other than forward, backward, and guidepost for members of route relations.

We would appreciate if the new role values could become accepted by the standard validation rules.

[Klumbumbus]

(Please don't set the milestone next time. Thats up to the JOSM team.)

[pelderson@…]

Of course. Sorry!

[skyper]

forward/backward is missing for route relations in general.

[pelderson@…]

Strange... the relation editor supports forward/backward roles for the continuity/way direction line display and when sorting. You would think validation would then also accept the roles!

[simon04]

Currently, we have

         <role key="" text="route segment" requisite="required" type="way,closedway" member_expression="highway|route=ferry"/>
         <role key="" text="infrastructure" requisite="optional" type="node,closedway" member_expression="tourism OR amenity"/>
         <role key="" text="natural" requisite="optional" type="node,closedway" member_expression="natural=peak OR natural=volcano OR mountain_pass=yes OR natural=water OR tourism=viewpoint OR amenity=drinking_water OR natural=spring OR place=locality"/>
         <role key="guidepost" text="guidepost" requisite="optional" type="node" member_expression="information=guidepost"/>

Guidepost coming from ​osmwiki:Relation:route#Members

I'm waiting for an update of ​osmwiki:Tag:route%3Dhiking#Elements_of_a_relation. Currently, too much time for researching the status quo is needed (at least for me).