-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrew McCarthy wrote: | On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:33:31PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote: |> But a motorway which is not a continuous road (i.e. has gaps in it) is |> _not_ a single road - I see no reason why it should be treated as one. |> Maybe you could cite some examples of why you need to treat it as a single |> road, even though it has gaps in it? | | Can we not have both? | | (1) A relation which contains all the ways that define a road according | to its official designation, whether a single road, or several disjoint | pieces. | | and | | (2) A relation for that road's notional "route", that contains the | relation above *plus* the (usually obvious) connecting bits that give | you a single, long distance route from A to B. | | Different people will find the two options useful. Or am I missing | something here?
That's my point of view, but this thread started with Richard saying we can't have /either/. The second option was really me saying "look, if a road was a relationship, that would open other great things, like we could link in these other bits with a special role - relationships /are/ brilliant!" But to my surprise, rather than people thinking that linking those bits of road might be a nice added feature, they started quoting highway regulations back at me insisting that the roads must be kept separate. It's not my opinion that we /must/ link in the connecting parts, just that it might be a nice feature. Robert (Jamie) Munro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH+4fiz+aYVHdncI0RAsGMAJ4z+jJovvCgMWIW5ce8hqw9jwkBvQCfUMFx 3uOeVAl9D230qOWKkgjPG5E= =AjW7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
