On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jo wrote:
> I don't really mind using nested relations, but some people seem to be very
> much opposed to it.
>
> That said, I love this relatedStreet relation, as it takes away a lot of
> duplication of data. Of course, then it seems a bit counterproductive to
>
I don't really mind using nested relations, but some people seem to be very
much opposed to it.
That said, I love this relatedStreet relation, as it takes away a lot of
duplication of data. Of course, then it seems a bit counterproductive to
still have the duplication of data on the relation level
Funnily enough we've just been having a similar discussion on the talk-gb
list. As it currently stands, JOSM complains if more than one "street"
member is included in the relation. However, there are people who are just
ignoring this and adding all relevant highways for the particular street
(i.e.
I also tagged a more complicated one:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481829/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481828/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481830/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481831/history
I guess it can'
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Jo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if I used the associatedStreet relation correctly:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481807/history
>
> I put all the common addr:-tags on the relation. Is that OK?
>
> Do the buildings still need an addr:street t
Hi,
I'm wondering if I used the associatedStreet relation correctly:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481807/history
I put all the common addr:-tags on the relation. Is that OK?
Do the buildings still need an addr:street tag?
I can't seem to find this information in the wiki.
Jo
