<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi<br>
<br>
On 02/11/2018 01:43, Allan Mustard wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94e64989-7479-ab3d-4e28-2dbef22800b0@mustard.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I don't see a problem
with duplicating a tag in both the relation and sections of
the object. In my case I have been mapping the national
highway network of Turkmenistan the last few months. I have
created relations so that all segments belong to one or more
highways (P-1 from Ashgabat to Koneurgench, for example).
However, most map renderers will not indicate that</font></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yours is a common & increasing misunderstanding of relations.
There's a belief that:<br>
<br>
a) Everything has to be linked together.<br>
&<br>
b) Relations are the only way to link them.<br>
<br>
You're also misunderstanding the purpose of the route relation which
is to indicate a regular, often used path taken by travellers which
cross *different* roads, paths, rivers etc.<br>
<br>
Duplication of data leads to confusion, wasted time & errors.<br>
Please refrain from mapping in this way.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:94e64989-7479-ab3d-4e28-2dbef22800b0@mustard.net">
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">, plus the road is
known to locals in most areas by that name, so I have also
added it to the name=* and ref=* tags. <br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
The way it's known is by it's reference number. It does not have a
name. This is just more unnecessary duplication.<br>
<br>
DaveF<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>