Mike, Richard, Thanks! I will leave as one relation, and will consider changing the roles of the spurs to "link."
Mike On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
