On 30 November 2013 14:56, Mander Li <[email protected]> wrote: > No such problem. There is one and only one official route that walker, MTB > and horse are able to take on; ie the existing 3 relations should be exactly > the same.
Cool. So obviously you have the right idea that they should be de-duplicated. > The BNT is too long to be maintained in one relation. The recommended size > of a relation is 300 members (see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size). Even if it is separated > into 3 relations (one for each state), it is well over the recommended size. > Actually, to reduce the size problem, it'd better to have 12 BNT relations - > one for each BNT guidebook. Yeah - personally I'd ignore the wiki, but that's just me. We have relations for admin boundaries for entire countries, and relations for cross-country railways and highways. They'd seriously break if we made them into relations and super-relations just to satisfy someone's idea of how many is manageable. Ian. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
