On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Volker Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Just a heads up, I'm noticing the relation for USBR 66 in Oklahoma is darn >> near unmaintainable due to the sheer size of it, and I'm taking action now >> to prevent the problem from getting far worse in the future. >> >> The fact that the west end of the relation ends on a dual carriageway >> leading into Texas makes this relation extremely difficult to validate as >> a >> single relation. This relation is presently over 1400 ways and is growing >> thanks to lane tagging efforts in the region. As this relation has a huge >> number of dual and single carriageway segments, it's going to be easiest >> to >> split this into two relations by direction so at least editors can >> properly >> validate this relation. >> > > Thanks for bringing this up. I have just ridden most of the proposed > USBR66 from East to West and noticed that a non-negligible part of the > route is on one-way roads. I fully agree that the best solution is to have > two relations, one for each direction. I have come to the same conclusion > here in Italy where the problem is less the dual-carriageway issue, but the > increasing number of roundabouts or inner-city one-way systems which have > the same effect on bicycle routes. > I think it's only natural to do it this way. We already do it regularly > for bus routes. > I will clarify that I do feel a little bad about this only because there's no editors that handle two-way relations that end on a dual carriageway cleanly, thus being the primary driver for this change.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
