I wrote: > This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across > multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise > discoverable.
On Sep 6, 2011 3:02 PM, "Steve Bennett" <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is > an uncontroversial route number of some sequence of roads, then we > should have a relation describing that same sequence of roads. ref=* > tags on ways are ok; relations are better. > > Do you agree with that? Or are you contesting the actual value of relations? Yes. If there is an uncontroversial route number that applies to a sequence of roads, lets map it. Yes, a relation is the best way. The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't clearly be identified as part of that route by survey. My example of the Princes Highway route from Sydney to Adelaide currently is one such route, where choosing what roads to include is often arbitary, and even if completed it may still not be a through route that can be followed, and may be confused with the actual road with the same name. I have no problem with the A10, A1, MR1, M1 etc being used on route relations. I wouldn't even have a problem with multiple Princes Highway routes over sections where such a route is clear and verifiable. Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
