On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote: > The RTA in NSW has an internal route that they call the Princes Highway - > which is essentially the main road heading south along the coast (give or > take). They nominate this route because it is the one they maintain as a > state govt road with state funding. The only problem is, the the route they > designate often doesn't follow the road named the Princes Highway, like the > section from Bellambi to Fairy Meadow where the RTA route called the Princes > Highway follows the Northern Distributor, rather than the Princes Highway. > Confusing?
If there are two distinct Princes Highway routes, then having two relations would be reasonable. Give them names to make it clear. If there is a main route with alternative sections, that can be managed, too. If an authority designates a route that doesn't use sections of road called "Princes Highway", it's really not the end of the world. > Other towns have a bypass route and through-town route - neither of which > are called the Princes Highway. Which to choose? Work it out case by case. > What I'm talking about here is a "route" relation. I'm arguing that we > don't need a named route relation called the Princes Highway. But your argument consists of "I can't decide which roads should make up the relation, so let's delete the relation". > We should call the roads involved what they are called using the name tag on > the roads. We should use the appropriate numerical route designators as > they apply for the route descriptors, either using the ref tag, or a route > relation. If people see the need to link the Princes Highway named sections > as a common street using the appropriate relations for that purpose, then > fine. > > Do you agree? No. Ok, you don't like the uncertainty, I see that. You want perfect, pristine, unambiguous mapping, or nothing at all. But relations are good, they group stuff together meaningfully, and they are useful for rendering. > It seems the Princes Highway can mean different things to different people, > and unlike the route and highway numbers, we don't have a fixed reference > point. Like I said, the world is messy and complicated, and we just have to deal with that. > >> Route 1 is "Cairns to Darwin via coast", and was signposted thus in the >> 60s. > > Yeah. National Route 1 is groovy, man. Princes Highway is part of route 1. See Wikipedia. Steve _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au