The only problem I can see is that you may then have three levels of relation hierarchy[1] which I find troublesome because it will make numbered route management harder for most people to know how to do.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like the complexity of having to maintain each member role either, but I think this could be more easily fixed by smart JOSM parsing (or a JOSM plugin) than having more levels of relations. I also think the member role approach would probably sit better with the international community. Martijn [1] Super-super-relation for state, super-relation for cardinal direction, relations for each direction. > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Martijn van Exel <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what the > cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our you > slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east / west / > north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted relationship > hierarchy. What is your thought on indicating cardinal direction in this case > if not as member role? > > I'm not sure where the problem is with child relations with direction=* tags > as one of the relation tags is exactly. Sure, takes more to set up, but it's > easier to maintain long term. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
