<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">This might be tangential to the discussion, on the other hand, it might be a kind of "hidden" or unstated assumption about how ways are "interpreted" in OSM to mean some implied given semantic, which in my opinion, they shouldn't do. So it could be revealing. Here goes: any given way should be explicit as to what it is doing there by virtue of two things, its tags and its relation memberships (if any). A third might be "connectivity," that is, whether a terminal node of the way is shared by another way. But, "that's it."</span><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think everybody can agree that there are many, many methods of OSM's data existing <i class="">in situ</i> (in their proper place) such that all of the variations 100% accurately describe the data. For example, whether a segment of highway between points A and B is made up of one single way (ideal in some sense of "perfection") or two, or three segments of way that have been split, doesn't really matter to the underlying correctness of things. Of course, we don't want to split that way into a needlessly large number of segments "just for grins." But then, there ARE cases where splitting a way is exactly the right thing to do, for example so that correct segment(s) are properly accommodated as elements of a (route...) relation.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I don't think OSM data consumers can rely upon a given way representing whether a legal distinction exists simply by the way being "this way" vs. "that way" (because one way got split at "some particular location"). Let the tags on those ways or their inclusion in a relation do that, because that is reliable and clearly stated (by explicit tags, or explicit inclusion as members).</div></div></body></html>