On 2012-08-08 18:46, Dave F. wrote :The discussion has gone off on a tangent (as it always seems to do :) ). Back to the original point - Are we agreed that tracks=4 on each individual way to indicate the total number of tracks running side by side is wrong?It's my opinion indeed. My example of a rail yard, even if exaggerated, proves that the other solution is not sensible. On 2012-08-08 17:41, Pieren wrote : The relation would say "these 4 tracks belong to the same railway".This is not possible either when the number of tracks varies. And relations of relations for that purpose would be overkill, wouldn't it? But possible if it's made clear that the number is indicative and means "on most of the length". Especially if the reader is hinted at variations, like with "1+". Making a relation bunching the tracks is a good idea as it probably exists for other reasons. And the only way to know number of tracks at one point is just to count them. Regarding this, I used JOSM to examine the relation of a motorway. Each lane was in it indeed, but in a single file (in a single queue, à la queue leu leu). I was shown the lane on one side but I found myself unable to spot the other side. How can a human have a clear view of a relation (e.g. counting the tracks or finding where they increase)? What (where, URL) are the rules saying in which order non-consecutive elements must be assembled? Best regards,
|
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
