On 9 April 2012 20:04, SomeoneElse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason Cunningham wrote:ks that way - the links work OK on one of the > smaller relations on the United Kingdom Long Distance Paths page. > > Is this a type of relation that should be broken up and put into a >> super-relation? >> > > I guess so - at its current size it'll only break again at some point. > > Cheers, > Andy > It's taken me several months but the South West Coast Path is now stored as a super-relation. I'd delayed completing it until the licence change process had finished. Initially wasn't sure about how may relations I should split it into to, but I decided to use the 52 sections used by official website. I've updated the couple of wiki pages pointing to the route, and created a separate page for the relation [link<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_West_Coast_Path> ] All the appropriate tags for the relation (eg type=route) are attached to the super-relation. I've only added a name, url, and note tag to the sections. This was because I was unsure if adding a tag such as type=route to a section made the section a distinct and separate hiking route. A website that shows hiking routes [link<http://hiking.lonvia.de/en/help/rendering/hierarchies>] states it assumes a child relation is simply a section of the parent relation if they both have the same Network tag. This suggests I should add all the route tags to the individual sections. I can add them fairly quickly if they are needed I've left the old relation in the "database" without route tags in case I have somehow blundered and there is a need to restore the old version. If there's no problems I'll delete the old relation in a few days. Cheers, jason
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
