On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Jo wrote: >>> I second that! 637 made me pull my hair out a few times before I >>> understood what was going on and why I was getting that 500 error. 701 >>> is annoying if you don't realise that you're breaking other people's work. >>> >> >> I will commit 701 because people are using a lot of route relations >> nowadays. >> >> BUT: >> >> The new behaviour is only valid for *some* kinds of relations. Imagine >> for example a turn restriction - here it is absolutely wrong to make >> both parts of the split way part of the relation.
This I don't understand at all. For me the relation concept says xxx is a certain type. Now when I break xxx into two parts, why should that change? >> What JOSM needs to do is detect the type of relation, look it up in >> some kind of list and determine what to do exactly. >> > You are right. It's not as straightforward as it seems at first. It's > probably true that more people are using route relations than any other > type of relations. You'll get around to the more intelligent solution > eventually, I'm sure of it. Probably the easiest would be to have the behaviour to copy the relation to both ways and warn in case of non-route based relations? That would be easy. BTW: I will add an easier way to remove ways from relations also soon. > Would it be very hard to check whether a way is already a member of a > relation before adding it? Or is that also specific to route relations? > i.e. are there other kinds of relations where the same member can appear > multiple times? According to the discussion on 637 there should be no relations, which have one member twice. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available) _______________________________________________ josm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/josm-dev
