<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>There is no 1000-member hard-cap on
relationship. However, it becomes awkward to edit huge relationships
spanning many states since the likelihood for conflicting
changesets increases.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The Wiki does contain a modification based on the
September discussion, but it's very difficult to understand that the preferred
method is one relation per state, tied together with a
super-relation. Perhaps the paragraph with "two different approaches
for indicating which direction a particular way" should be noted as valid
existing tagging, but should be discouraged for future work.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> The Super-Relation column in the Wiki should
be a flag to anyone needing to update a section of interstate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:chunter952@gmail.com
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:chunter952@gmail.com">Chris Hunter</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 07, 2010 1:58 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A
title="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</A> ; <A
title="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</A> ; <A
title="mailto:newbies@openstreetmap.org
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:newbies@openstreetmap.org">newbies@openstreetmap.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying
InterstateRelations</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>According to the WIKI and some discussions back in April (<A
title="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html</A>)
and again in September (<A
title="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html</A>),
the US Interstate system was going to be moved into a new schema where each
direction of each interstate would be split at the state border to avoid hitting
API 0.6's 1000-member hard-cap on relationships.<BR><BR>Last night, user NE2
"cleaned up" the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations
per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've
already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to
check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate
directions at the state line.<BR><BR></BODY></HTML>