Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Dave F. wrote: > I've always read the brackets to mean 'leading to' or 'via' not as being > shared. From the Highway Code: "Motorways shown in brackets can > also be reached along the route indicated." Yes, exactly. Because they're just numbers, not routes, the brackets simply mean "if you

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread David Woolley
On 07/12/15 13:11, Lester Caine wrote: what is now the highways agency Recently re-branded Highways England! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Derick Rethans
On Sat, 5 Dec 2015, Dave F. wrote: > I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user: > abc26324 prompts me to > ask/verify again the point of road relations in the UK. Example: > >

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Colin Smale
You are referring to the "official" refs. Is it *possible* that the signs disagree with the official data? To make things look more logical for drivers? I ask this because we tend to give precedence in our mapping to what is visible on road signs, rather than blindly following the official

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Colin Smale wrote: > Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is > the primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown > within brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes > with the A26. It is shown as "Eastbourne A22 / Lewes (A26)". > Is this

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Andy Townsend
On 07/12/2015 11:35, Colin Smale wrote: Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is the primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown within brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes with the A26. It is shown as "Eastbourne A22 / Lewes

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Lester Caine
On 07/12/15 12:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Historically there is a designated route concept in the UK in the sense that > some countries have them, but it doesn't map to road numbers, has largely > fallen from use, and is neither signposted nor verifiable: >

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Dave F.
On 07/12/2015 12:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Colin Smale wrote: Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is the primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown within brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes with the A26. It is shown as

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Andrew Hain
: Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> Sent: 07 December 2015 10:27 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote: >> Hi >> >> I know this has been di

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Lester Caine
On 07/12/15 19:20, Andrew Hain wrote: > But surely I can see no obvious harm in the presence of the relations. Also > searching the database by reference doesn’t always work, for instance not all > road segments tagged A1 in the UK are part of the road from London to > Edinburgh. >>> >>

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote: > Hi > > I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user: > abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations > in the UK. Example: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578 > >

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Dave F.
On 07/12/2015 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote: I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard to the A161. I think a zero-hour block is probably called for, if only to grab his attention. Dave F. ---

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Philip Barnes
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 05:53 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > These route relations are pointless armchairing and make the map > harder to > edit for newbies to no benefit. If the user doesn't respond to > changeset > comments I would agree with deleting them. > I agree Richard The relations

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-07 Thread Chris Hill
On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote: On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote: Hi I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user: abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations in the UK. Example:

[Talk-GB] route relations type=road

2015-12-04 Thread Dave F.
Hi I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user: abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations in the UK. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578 Route relations are