Quoting Craig Feuerherdt <[email protected]>: > I notice you haven't made any changes to the page yet - what have(n't) you > been doing :D
I can add some details as I am currently mapping my trip in November (!) to Melbourne and back (down via Mount Beauty, back via Shepparton), adding some relations as I go. In the table some relations have been added as 'Yes', I was thinking it might be more useful to have the relation number (e.g. 373955 for B410). What does everyone think? Incidentally, I've noticed that the route numbers and route names aren't showing in Mapnik for relations. As an experiment, I added a stub for C528 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/374047 ) using someone else's trace and my voice recording of the route number. I placed highway=secondary into the relation rather than the way, and the route number shows. Should we be doing this for all relations? There wasn't a road name sign, so I don't know yet whether this will help make names show up. Mark P. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "They offered to transport me back to any point in history that I would care to go, and so I had them send me back to last Thursday night, so I could pay my phone bill on time." (Weird Al Yankovic, "Everything You Know Is Wrong") _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
