<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/11/2015 13:44, Paul Johnson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMPM96qj9VimKAQ9c6b_5yfaPykKeGL+uaHks+HWqoWnhzAV4w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Andy
Townsend <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" target="_blank">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Obviously in places
where a road can have multiple equivalent references
(such as the US) route relations perfect sense (as does
figuring out which routes are actually signed on which
bits of road) but in places where there's only one real
ref per piece of tarmac (such as the UK) there's no need
to force mappers to start maintaining relations as well
as just recording the reference.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Well, I believe impetus for route relations was
Sustrans networks. These tags went from the ways to
relations years ago already, so call me skeptical that
there's no multiplexes in the UK (especially since without
any real effort inside 30 seconds, just randomly scrolling
by hand to the UK, I see that the A24 and RCN CS7 are
multiplexed). I honestly don't see why we should be
treating tags related to route=road any different than
we're already treating route=bicycle.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sure - there are lots of route relations (such as Sustrans' cycle
networks) in the UK, but (over here) that's separate from the
reference of the road. It's also fair to say that Sustrans' route
labelling can be "variable", to the point where "the signs on the
ground", "the route they'd like to use" and "the official current
sustrans route" can be three different things. As an aside,
Sustrans recently changed their official route for some routes just
south of where I live to match the signs on the ground (and
therefore OSM, which was mapped from those) as what OSM had was
actually more a more sensible route than what they had. Where there
is this variability in signing, you can't always expect someone
(especially a new mapper) to fill in all the details of cycle routes
that a bit of road is part of, though a cycling fan can usually come
along and fill in the gaps. However a new mapper can read the
reference on normal road signs and should be able to fill in the
"ref" on the way without difficulty. The tricky bit (in the US) is
having a UI in e.g. iD that can guide them through the "add to
existing nearby route relation". <br>
<br>
Both iD and P2 can show nearby relations, but for example at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.07007/-2.04161">http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.07007/-2.04161</a> both also
show in the relations that you might want to add to a way the
relations that a way is already part of, and super-relations of
other relations (which it doesn't need to be added to).<br>
<br>
None of this is easy, and iD (correctly in my view) tries to hide
relation functionality if it can. I'm just suggesting to try and
keep it simple where its possible to do so (i.e. don't create route
relations where it's possible to express the same concept in a
simpler way).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Andy (SomeoneElse)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>