On 19 May 2012 01:22, SomeoneElse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Given that the SW Coast Path relation has broken and had to be repaired > recently, I'd definitely add a new relation for the new bit. Perhaps it > makes sense to have a "super relation" for the whole SW path made up of > smaller relations, of which this can be one alternative route (if I've > understood the situation properly)? > The section mentioned is part of the SW Coast Path so it should be relation that is part of a suggested super relation. Unless it's really obvious that the name of a particular piece of path is > "blah" (as opposed to being part or a longer route called "blah") I'd name > the relation but I wouldn't name each way "blah". I'd imagine that most > data consumers can handle named relations - Garmin users; Lonvia's hiking > map: > +1 After spotting the the most recent problem with the SW Coast Path, I'd decided to follow the suggested idea of creating a super relation for this route. The official website breaks the whole route down into 52 sections so I was thinking of using those. Would 52 relations be too many? I may have given the idea some thought but I didnt get far because it seemed a huge bit of work. I meant to do a bit of research to see if there was an easy way of splitting this massive relation but havent got round to it. So I may as well ask now - Is there an easy way to split this massive relation? I'd thought about about trying to downloading with Josm, then copy and pasting sections of the route to a new layers then adding the relation data to this clean bit of route? Jason
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
