Fine, but how can we tag the starting/ending point of a roundtrip, often close to the tourist office of the village/resort? --Cordialement, [[Utilisateur:gerdami gerdami]] <sup>[[[Discussion Utilisateur:gerdami|blabla]]]</sup> 16:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well think about something and document it. Not all roundtrip routes acutally have a single starting point. Keep it in my. There could be minor and major points. All those of course should be tagged on the node and not on the relation...--Extremecarver 20:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- If the roundtrip route is described with a relation, why not including the start/end node into the relation and assign a role "start" or something similar to the node? HeikoE 09:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've started giving the guidepost or information board at the beginning the role "start" and the peak/checkpoint etc. at the end the role "goal", I also think the role "link" could be used for alternative start ways. For data users it is probably easier if the start and goal roles are given to the first and last way on the route. Guttorm Flatabø 15:05, 13 August 2012 (BST)
- Page Tag:route=fitness_trail suggests the use of roles start, end, start_stop for fitness trails. First way and start node would be useful for oneway roundtrips. See also this talk Talk:Walking_Routes#Roundtrip_walking_routes--Cordialement, gerdami 12:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
What's about mixed types of such tracks? Sometime hiking trails have a short way to the "round" and sometimes it'll contain more than one round (e.g. like an eight). how to map such things? --Cycling zno (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well they are not really a roundtrip (you can enter/exit anywhere and do the tour, and arrive again at the startpoint. I would tag the roundtrip=no. --Extremecarver (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
New info 2018
--Peter Elderson (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC) It has been pointed out that roundtrip, in UK English, actually means that you take a bus tour or boat or other transport, you are transported to one or more locations, then returned to the starting point by the same vehicle, maybe via another route or via the same route, that doesn't matter. US English is more like a roundtrip is ticket to another location including the return voyage via the same or almost the same route. In both cases, it's used for a service, rather than a route. It's a stretch to apply the term to a hiking or cycling route, because it's really not about the route. The statement that start and end point are the same is true but insufficient. However, if you regard the waymarks and the often available leaflet and map post as a sort of service, it's imaginable that a walking or cycling route is a roundtrip. The waymarks and directions bring you back to your starting point. Most times the route would be circular or mainly circular, but it's not an absolute requirement.
- --Peter Elderson (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Proposed new text:
- Used with waymarked routes for cycling and walking routes and comparable routes.
- Use roundtrip=no on a route relation to indicate that you will not return to or near the starting point when following the waymarks in any one direction.
- Use roundtrip=yes on a route relation to indicate that you will return to or near the starting point when following the waymarks in any one direction.
- For public transport routes, the roundtrip key should not be used to indicate a circular route. circular_route=yes is used to indicate that the line follows a "circular" route.
- You may encounter circular_route=yes on waymarked trails, which then is equivalent to roundtrip=yes.
- Use closed_loop=yes to indicate that a route should be a closed loop of ways in OSM-editors.
--Peter Elderson (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC) About starting points on a circular route: current thinking is you can include one or more nodes in the relation, with the role: start. Renderers could show a start/finish bow or something. Sort the ways so they form a circular route, include the node(s) before or after the ways. If the node coincides with an infoboard or guidepost, tag that on the node. If it's more than that, eg parking space, ticket machine, benches, horse parking, bicycle rent, consider tagging a separate node (not part of the route) or an area as highway=trailhead.
- I fact I think no information is actually added by this tag as currently described. If you define roundtrip as an actual closed_loop, you know from the database its a roundtrip because starting point equals end point. Same goes if you use loop=yes or closed_loop=yes.
- I think roundtrip=yes only makes sense for non-closed_loop routes or routes with branches, which still should count as roundtrips for special rendering or selective listings.--Peter Elderson (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- One additional, related use case that I have not seen discussed so far are routes that can be/are cycled in both directions (e.g., at the passengers' request). For hiking and cycling routes this is kinda implied I guess but what about some special kind of passenger services? This might be most relevant for small ferries with 3 or more hops but I suppose their might be other modes of PT that offer a similar pattern. In these cases the operator will determine the direction/next stop based on demand and/or capacity. Suppose you have 3 piers and a single ferry "line" services all of them on demand. How should that be tagged? I ended up mapping all three possible ways and using the description=* keys to explain it. Tagging oneway=no on the route relation to hint at the fact came to my mind but it is clearly not ideal and also does only apply to cycles with 3 nodes (if there are more nodes then there a other possible direct connections). --Stefanct (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)