Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads
2010/8/25 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2010/8/24 Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com: Is there any current usage of super-relations for roads? This could be resolved by making a relation of E 45 Sorsele municipality, E 45 Storuman municipality, E 45 Vilhelmina municipality, etc. and then join all of them in the super-relation E 45 Sweden, and finally join E 45 Sweden, E 45 Denmark, E 45 Germany, etc. in the (super-)super-relation E 45. Is the purpose of this E45-relation to be easily able to download the whole route? Because to put it in OSM it is sufficient to tag all pieces with ref=E 45 cheers, Martin Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing it because everyone else is. I have a vauge memory of arguments that a way beloning to several roads are better represented by a relation for each road instead of having ref=E 12; E 4; 92 /Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads
2010/8/25 Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com: Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing it because everyone else is. I have a vauge memory of arguments that a way beloning to several roads are better represented by a relation for each road instead of having ref=E 12; E 4; 92 one remark: E-numbers should be tagged int_ref http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/International_Reference cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads
In Sweden the E-roads are also the national ref (with exceptions of Swedish/Norwegian E 6 that is the international E 47 and Swedish E 4 that is international E 55) so I guess we should use both. regards Konrad 2010/8/25 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2010/8/25 Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com: Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing it because everyone else is. I have a vauge memory of arguments that a way beloning to several roads are better represented by a relation for each road instead of having ref=E 12; E 4; 92 one remark: E-numbers should be tagged int_ref http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/International_Reference cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads
Konrad Skeri wrote: Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route (and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds nonredundant information for some one-way pairs, where the two directions use different two-way roads. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Super-relations-for-roads-tp5458794p5460787.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads
2010/8/25 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route (and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds nonredundant information for some one-way pairs, where the two directions use different two-way roads. OK, but putting international roads all in one relation (the E45 is 4920 km long) is not required for this scope. If you think how often we are splitting ways (bridges, maxspeed, turn_restrictions, oneway, etc.) this would get to thousands of members hence lacking transparency and being very vulnerable to editing conflicts. You should split them in several smaller relations, e.g. per region (and probably add those relations to super-relations as Konrad suggested). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads
I have had a similar thought for the longer Federal Highways in Brazil. Dividing them by state sounds sensible, as BR-101 reaches all the way from the border to Uruguay in the south to the city of Recife in Northeast. If my counting is right, that is 9 states. And there are several other highways like that in Brazil. brgds Aun Johnsen On 25/08/2010, at 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/25 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route (and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds nonredundant information for some one-way pairs, where the two directions use different two-way roads. OK, but putting international roads all in one relation (the E45 is 4920 km long) is not required for this scope. If you think how often we are splitting ways (bridges, maxspeed, turn_restrictions, oneway, etc.) this would get to thousands of members hence lacking transparency and being very vulnerable to editing conflicts. You should split them in several smaller relations, e.g. per region (and probably add those relations to super-relations as Konrad suggested). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads
Is there any current usage of super-relations for roads? Super-relations have come into wider use in the US on national road networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_relations Minimizing conflicts across huge geographic areas was one of the tipping points in favor of super-relations. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
