On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:25:11PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote: > Which bits you use to connect the disjointed sections are a rather > arbitrary decision - should OSM be making such decisions? I mean, there is > no officially documented "this is how you get between these sections" route > so we would be making a route up arbitrarilly. > > Sure, for some stuff it might be obvious, but for a lot of stuff it isn't. > Take the A31, for example - it joins the M3 near Winchester but then > reappears on the westerly end of the M27. You might say that the M3 and > M27 is "obviously" the missing link and add that to the A31 relation, but > that would be completely unsuitable for cyclists. This really isn't the > job for submitters, this is the job for a route planner program - > submitters are supposed to be recording data, not making relatively > arbitrary decisions about which routes people should take.
Okay, I take your point. In Ireland I'm not aware of any such extreme examples (except the N3), with most disjoins being only a few hundred metres at most. In that case, would the use of highway relations be restricted to such cases where there is one *official* route, with differing refs? For example, National Primary Road 7 in Ireland is the entire road from Dublin to Limerick. It's called the N7, but for those portions where it's a motorway, it's the M7. In this case ref=M7;N7 would only be appropriate for the motorway if N7 was guaranteed not to appear. :) Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
