Phil! and Kevin, I like everything said! "Huge are tough to edit," yes. "Tie them all together with a super-relation to show that they are together with certain tags," yes, or maybe. I'm kicking it around, we are.
The C&O Trail does make for an interesting case. We might agree that cycle_network=US:NPS is a good start. But exactly which object in OSM to tag this? Sometimes we make what seems like a duplicate of existing data, sometimes we shine a bright light forward by keeping things separate at the cost of a bit of apparent redundancy but really more like specificity. Sometimes we tie a bow AND a ribbon on things. OK. Richard (username) edited relation 1392951 a day or so ago and I'd say tightened up at the Maryland level. If somebody tied this COC and others together into a "C&O" super-relation tagged with cycle_network=US:NPS (and "the correct" member elements as state-level routes) I could see balls continuing to bounce as they have been, especially as mild naming conventions "stitch a whole" together, Lonvia's routes panel is quite informative in this regard, though the alphabetic vs. numeric sorting of the USBRs went out the window long ago. If not, OK. If COC and others get a cycle_network=US:NPS tag, and we pause, no super-relation, OK, that makes sense, too. I think we have to "keep being sensible." Maybe have a check point amongst ourselves every once in a while. Consensus can be slow. With less wordiness, I know. It's a big country, a big map, a big planet. Let's do our best, especially when talking with each other about how we agree things are built. It's been chaotic, it has always a little chaotic, nothing wrong with a little order understood amongst us. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
