I actually think this is more elegant, to create separate relations for the directions, but I don't know how common it is. Looking at http://maproulette.org/relationpages/interstates.html (which I see does no longer get automatically updated..need to look into that) I see a mix of both combined and split relations.
If we were to split by direction, how would we handle a beltway cases like http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1694951 ? This one changes direction from E/W to N/S about four times. I would actually not mind having a relation for each cardinal direction stretch and a super-relation for the two overall directions, and one super on top of that for the entire freeway. How do people like the idea of splitting the route relations by direction like that? On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Tod Fitch <[email protected]> wrote: > The only freeways I've looked at (I-5, I-10, I-15, CA-85), all in > California, have relations for the direction and then a super relation for > whole thing. > > Tod > > -- > Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity. > > > Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> What is the preferred way to indicate the direction of a motorway, for >> example I-215 Eastbound? >> >> I know of at least two possible tags that can be used, there may be >> more: the direction tag on the relation and the role tag on the >> relation members. The former to me seems easier to maintain (only one >> tag per relation instead of a tag on all members), but the latter >> looks to be (much) more prevalent. My guess this is because of the >> practice to combine both directions of one freeway in one relation >> rather than having two relations for the separate directions. -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
