Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-12 Thread Ben Laenen
On Monday 11 February 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and relations (since things like route relations will again have these segment relations contained in them),

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-11 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and relations (since things like route relations will again have these segment relations contained in them), which will likely increase complexity a lot in my

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-11 Thread Ben Laenen
On Monday 11 February 2008, Karl Newman wrote: That seems like a reasonable approach--see my reply to Bernd's email in another forked thread. The way should be long, but not unreasonably so, and if the name or highway type changes, that seems like a logical place to split it. I thought with

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-11 Thread Karl Newman
On Feb 11, 2008 10:36 AM, Martin Trautmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karl Newman wrote: To me, the nodes and ways should follow the physical world as much as possible--the road didn't change just because the speed limit changed, so why chop it up? I changed the subject now - and I agree,