A route relation with the subtype route=piste may contain points, ways, and areas [1]. When piste:type=downhill (i.e. alpine skiing), dowhill direction is important. For ways, downhill direction is simply the way direction. For areas, though, this is not clear. I did read everything on [2] and other places, but didn't find a clear indication on how dowhill direction should be implied when considering areas. Some people use both an area and a way, similar to what is done with rivers [3]. However, I'd rather not do this, since I feel it would clutter up piste relations. But how the incline information may be deduced then? What is your take on this? Use both a way and an area for a large section of the piste, and add both objects in the piste relation? Some people my suggest to avoid relations. I understand that the use of piste relations adds complexity, but in some situations may be useful--e.g. the same way or area is shared among multiple pistes. Besides, the issue of specifying downhill direction for areas is still there even when relations are not used. Ref: - [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dpiste - [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Piste_Maps - [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank

A route relation with the subtype route=piste may contain points, ways, and areas [1]. When piste:type=downhill (i.e. alpine skiing), dowhill direction is important. For ways, downhill direction is simply the way direction. For areas, though, this is not clear. I did read everything on [2] and other places, but didn't find a clear indication on how dowhill direction should be implied when considering areas. Some people use both an area and a way, similar to what is done with rivers [3]. However, I'd rather not do this, since I feel it would clutter up piste relations. But how the incline information may be deduced then? What is your take on this? Use both a way and an area for a large section of the piste, and add both objects in the piste relation? Some people my suggest to avoid relations. I understand that the use of piste relations adds complexity, but in some situations may be useful--e.g. the same way or area is shared among multiple pistes. Besides, the issue of specifying downhill direction for areas is still there even when relations are not used. Ref: - [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dpiste - [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Piste_Maps - [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank