On 12 Apr 2009, at 11:58 , Richard Weait wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:23 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:39:45 -0700 >> Apollinaris Schoell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 2 relations are easier. adding role to thousands of members is a >>> pain. and we need to split relations with API 0.6 anyway >> >> So how do we handle the case where a US route is cosigned with an >> interstate? >> >> 1. add both motorways to new route relations that signify the >> direction >> of the original US route, and have no relation between those >> relations >> and the original US route? >> 2. Have both ways part of the original US route, with no direction >> information? >> 3. Same as number one, but have the new us routes added to a >> "super-relation" for the original US route > > One relation for the Interstate. One relation for the US Route. They > each have ways (or sub-relations) for members. Where they are > cosigned, > the ways or sub-relations are members of both relations. > yes this the best approach and it avoids the ugly ref=US XXX;US YYY syntax on the ways
> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
