Nic Roets wrote: > I implemented "only_*" as something that's disallowed i.e. a restriction. > The "obligation" interpretation only came later. > > Perhaps we can specify that complex vias may not have "only_*"'s and require > people to implement their ideas with no_'s ?
While I don't see a problem with this requirement in theory, I doubt that the idea would be a very popular, partly because the traffic signs (rendering hints) and the relation semantics have been merged by using that strange only_/no_-prefix solution. >> Despite via splitting not being necessary for proper relation handling, >> I still think that "a relation using via nodes will always contain all >> nodes as via nodes one would travel along" is essential. Otherwise, >> there would inevitably be some problems: >> If, in your example, the via information was represented by via nodes on >> S instead of via way(s), that restriction would also forbid turning left >> from A onto S, following S without turning into B, then using other >> roads to return to the double carriageway and following B back to the >> restriction's "to" part. This is obviously not intended. > > I think we should require that complex vias must always include all the ways > that are traveled. Does "way" mean way primitives here, as opposed to nodes? Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk