On 8/19/2011 6:22 AM, Bob Hawkins wrote:
Its relation id is 1716283. I wonder, having created it, whether it should now be added as a single route element to the Chiltern Way relation?
There are several ways to look at route relations in OSM. One is the classic 'route model', where the relation defines a single continuous path from beginning to end. Automatic relation analysis tools can be used to confirm / maintain the route connectivity. In practice 'routers' just route on the topological data and ignore route relations.
The other function of relations is to provide a convenient way to download a list of related objects using a single editor command, rather than downloading the entire bounding box that includes all relations objects.
A good reason to have relations joined by super-relations is that it allows different people to simultaneously edit ways in different areas of the super-relation without creating an edit conflict.
I took a look at the Society diagram http://www.chilternsociety.org.uk/about-ChltnWay.php to get an idea of how the extensions are arranged. I would say that for this case, it would make sense to have a relation for each named part of the trail, and a super-relation to define the 'Chiltern Way' as a whole.
_______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
