Hi Enno
Well so much for uncontested. I am surprised by the love for many lwn relations for a single way.
I don't think knooppuntnet is a good fit. There, practically every junction has its number. And if not, it's only a few meters to the next numbered one. Indeed the Netherlands was the inspiration for the Swiss wiki page, but in Switzerland, in some places, almost no junction is named. At least there, the Swiss network has no emphasis on the nodes. No need to cling to this initial proposal. What you describe sound more like mapping of destination signs as described here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign I would be ok with those, and those will use large amounts of relations if that is a consolation :)
On 21.06.21 17:41, Enno Hermann wrote:
It seems better to map all relations up to a named guidepost, especially because that's how the base network routes are signposted.
It does not seem that way to me from experience and also from the documentation linked from BAK365. The near destination could be before or after the next named guide post. A solution that maps the destinations locally to the guidepost seems favorable.
As for the difficulty, that is mapped on the way itself. I don't see the connection to the route relations? I have observed that they are quite inconsistently signed if you are on a lower difficulty segment, and look at destinations which are only reachable vie a higher difficulty level later on the way. So that might even be difficult to consistently map with destination sign mapping
Best regards Michael