Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I'm not sure why the need for a specific towpath-waterway relation. Why not > just have a general-purpose relation for "association"? It could be > augmented with a type if need be, but that's probably unnecessary - if one > member's a canal and the other's a towpath, you can deduce it from there.
There is no specific type for "towpath" - it's marked as a footpath, service road, motorway, bridleway - whatever it happens to also be. Not all towpaths are footpaths today, as you will know. Basically, what I am proposing is a relation of two ways with a type - type=towpath. It's no more complex than that. Gerv _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
