On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]>wrote:
> Toby Murray wrote: > > I mentioned something about cardinal direction relation roles on > > IRC last night and I think it was RichardF thought they were > > silly because he had no concept of a "north/south" vs "east/west" > > highway. > > Probably not me, but you're right, and it's not a question we have to worry > about in the UK anyway - we don't need highway route relations because any > road only has one number. > > FWIW, and you should absolutely not listen to me because I'm a long way > away > and it's up to you guys to sort yourselves out... but I'd create a separate > relation for each direction (i.e. one northbound relation, one southbound > relation) and not bother with roles at all. It's simpler conceptually, > simpler for the newbie to edit, simpler to process. (If you wanted to, you > could then have a super-relation for the two relations, though personally I > wouldn't see the need.) > I've been in favor of a single relation for both directions, however I think I'm questioning that now. * Where a road predominantly consists of dual carriageways (such as US Interstates), I think there's no trouble using a single relation, and the north/south/east/west roles for the appropriate members, however two relations would be just fine with me as well. * For roads that consist predominantly of single ways, with perhaps a few divisions here and there such as near intersections, I think a single relation makes the most sense, and forward/backward roles are fine if they are helpful. * For those roads which are more evenly split between being dual and single carriageways, I think two relations might make more sense for reasons of simplicity of editing. -Josh
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
