Mike Thompson wrote: > Should the relation be split in two and a super relation created > containing both?
No. Super-relations create complexity both for the mapper and the data user. There is no need to use them if you don't have to. In this case, the fact that the two sections are disjoint can be found by examining the geometry: there's therefore no need to recreate this meaning in the metadata structure. > Also, is it good practice to have a route relation that "forks" or > has spurs [...] > Should this also handled with a super relation? IME these are often handled with relation roles. For example, link routes connecting to the main 'trunk' of a UK National Cycle Network route are frequently added to the main relation, but with a role of 'link'. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Route-Relations-tp5758371p5758390.html Sent from the Newbies mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
