Proposal talk:Traffic mirror relation using ways

Other features/pages affected

(I've just started the RFC, so I'm adding this here instead of changing the proposal while the RFC is ongoing.) Both type=* and Relation:traffic mirror (plus a redirection from type=traffic_mirror to Relation:traffic mirror) should already describe the legacy usage of the relation, but they do not right now. These pages should include the proposal if it is accepted. Biff (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Legacy relations

If the proposal passes, I don't see a reason to preserve legacy relations. There are just 360 of them currently, and can be safely upgraded to the new format in a matter of hours, even manually. It only makes sense to have the same format for mirrors and turn restrictions. So I'd suggest (if others agree) just removing the backward-compatibility notes and writing a paragraph proposing how to upgrade/convert existing relations. Duja (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Up to now, the RFC discussion has led to the conclusion that the format of traffic-mirror relations will be different from the format of turn-restriction relations and again be more similar to the format of enforcement relations. Once the proposal has been voted on and accepted (not before September or October), it will indeed make sense to review all existing traffic-mirror relations manually. This review should also lead to input for a new proposal to update the specification of the tags of the traffic mirror node. Biff (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading the community discussion, and many interesting points and use cases have been raised. So the final proposal might easily end up quite different from the initial one. Duja (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday, I tried to implement all discussion results in the proposal. Please let me know if anything needs to be improved! Biff (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)