"Eric Ladner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Dave Stubbs ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> The downside here is that it disconnects the route from >>the streets >> the route follows.. you can piece this back together by >>working out >> where it follows the same nodes as a street, but this is >>quite >> complicated to do, and not necessarily reliable. For >>certain uses such >> as automatically describing a route, it makes much more >>sense if the >> proper street object is used. > > So the only proper way to do it (in the aforementioned >case) is to split the > ways where the route turns so you can select the >individual pieces of the > route to add it to the relation, true? > ***Utterly unofficial*** The logical step from this is to make streets relations themselves of all of these little sections. This would also be useful for bridges (i.e. a road could be continuous with only a section being a bridge) and all of those non linear residential streets. It might make the rendering quite a bit clearer too. A route could have a reference the same and change its name several times (major routes through cities quite often do this).
Now of course this seems to be taking us back to segments and ways, but at least this time the segments could have multiple nodes. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/newbies
