Andy Allan <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Peter Budny <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Relations are the cleaner solution here. You /could/ accomplish the >> same thing with regular tags, but who wants to see symbol=*, symbol_1=*, >> symbol_2=*, etc. on every way in a city? (Or worse, a giant symbol=* >> tag with semicolon-separated URLs?) > > Great. So the way to fix this is to first make the data consumed. I'd > suggest working on osm2pgsql so that it supports route relations > cleanly, as you've described. Then, you can sit back and let the > community take advantage of the new rendering system, and implement > route relations themselves in whichever fashion motivates them the > most.
I'd love to work on that... later, when I'm not working 60-hour weeks trying to graduate. Not right now. > Also, I'd advise you to leave TIGER data to one side. A very high > percentage of major roads in OSM in the US have been edited, many > multiple times What about the minor roads? State Roads are exactly the ones that aren't major, and there are a lot of them. Most states have at least several hundred, and a few like Kentucky and Texas have more than 6000. That's a /minimum/ estimate of 20,000 roads, most of which haven't been touched because they're in rural areas. -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
