A bridge is a physical entity. Likewise, the roadway is a physical entity. So, each physical entity can have its own ID. A route is a logical entity. It is common for a single way (roadway) to serve as a portion of multiple named routes. So, it makes sense for a bridge to be associated with a single way, as opposed to multiple routes.
-------Original Email------- Subject :Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles >From :mailto:[email protected] Date :Sat Feb 05 21:44:10 America/Chicago 2011 On 02/04/2011 01:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 2/3/2011 11:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> underlying ways >> often have refs that belong to them (like bridge numbers) but not the >> route itself. > You've said this a number of times without explanation. Why does the > bridge number, or ODOT's internal referencing, "belong" to the way, > while the route number doesn't? Oregon considers highway numbers and route numbers differently. >> Bike boulevards are on the same network as each other (well, the >> Portland ones, are, at any rate; note I'm not referring to official >> routes for state highways like 99 or federal highways like 205 or 84 >> since you're talking about city bike boulevards). > > Speaking of this, I don't think it's appropriate to mark the cycleways > that parallel I-84 and I-205 as ncn just because they parallel highways > on the national motor network. Never mind Oregon gets federal dollars to maintain those third roadways for those federal ways, eh? _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John F. Eldredge -- [email protected] "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
