What about just combining the relations for selected states where the AT crosses back and forth across the state border, like TN/NC and VA/WV?
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > > > On May 2, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Mike N <nice...@att.net> wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2016 11:41 AM, Elliott Plack wrote: > >> This got me thinking, is there any specific need to have the route > >> broken up by state? Unlike interstate highways, where maintenance > >> changes across state lines, at the border, the AT maintenance is handled > >> by a trifecta of federal agencies and a non-profit. There are also 31 > >> clubs that share some of the maintenance on some sections. > > > > The advantage of breaking up a relation into smaller relations is to > minimize the probability of edit conflicts. I don't know how often things > change, or more detail is added on the Appalachian Trail. My tendency > would be to leave it separated, but I have no strong opinion either way. > > I am with Mike here. The state boundary offers an obvious and visible > opportunity to slice up potentially unwieldy relations into smaller chunks. > Huge relations make editing trickier (conflicts, relation member > management, loading times) and data processing potentially more time and > memory consuming. > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
