"Mike N." <[email protected]> writes: >> One thing I /haven't/ seen addressed yet is whether single relations are >> preferred, or one relation for each way with a super-relation. >> Currently both are in use, but I think it would be a lot easier for >> future code if we pick one and move towards it from now on. > > I don't see any advantage for a relation per way; a single relation > with roles for each direction has all the information needed by a > relation-user, and it's one less thing to keep track of when editing > or updating.
The potential problem I see is when you have a road that alternates frequently between single- and dual-carriageways (which many state routes do, and even a lot of US highways). How do you represent this in a single relation? 1) Put single-carriageways in once, with no role. Or, with "role=north/south". Either way, this is difficult to recognize and parse automatically. And aren't members of a relation ordered inside the relation? (I know JOSM shows icons for whether a way is connected to the ways before and after it in a relation.) The ordering loses any meaning under this method. 2) Put single-carriageways in twice, once with "role=north" and once with "role=south". This is allowed, and fixes the problem, but don't most editors complain when the same object appears more than once in a relation? In my view, having separate relations for each direction, and a super-relation to hold them solves this problem. But maybe there's some argument against them that I've missed. Thoughts? -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
