It appears there was an oversight in one of changesets for the NH44 relations, where I should have checked that the members were still in the original NH44 relation. The error occurred when I was ordering the NH44 relation.
> On 24 Jul 2016, at 11:27, I Chengappa <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Heinz_V has made relevant comments in a forum post at > http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17851&p=3 > <http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17851&p=3>. I've not been > paying attention to most road / route relations, but I understand that there > has been a coherent mapping of national highways in India, mostly due to him, > which has now been broken. As the discussion has primarily been there so far, > I suggest that it should continue there. > > This discussion, between two users over one day and in a separate forum from > that discussion, does not constitute general acceptance, even by default. > Hence there is an argument for reverting the changes. > > On 21 July 2016 at 16:25, Arun Ganesh <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > This is looking good to me. It would be great to have a diary post on > tools/workflow to do this. Have always found handling and modifying these > relations painful. > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi, > > I have set up NH765 as a prototype for the reformed relations - NH765 is a > small route where it should be easy to fine tune the idea before full-scale > conversion. > > The base route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741>) would only contain > sub-relations with for each State that it passes through with appropriate > role names (as the E-route system already does). > > The sub-relations, for Telangana > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946>) and Andhra Pradesh > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980>) in our case, would contain > appropriately ordered ways, with the main route on top and links (slip roads) > at the bottom. > > I envisage that one relation for each state should be sufficient for the time > being. > > — Amaroussi. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-in mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in> > > > > -- > Arun Ganesh > @planemad > <http://j.mp/ArunGanesh> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-in mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-in mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
_______________________________________________ Talk-in mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
