<p dir="ltr">For consistency sake, seems like relations are the way to go, even in one route instances.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 22, 2014 10:08 AM, "Pieren" <<a href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com">pieren3@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Janko Mihelić <<a href="mailto:janjko@gmail.com">janjko@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> What did you mean with this? Do you suggest we use relations when there are<br>
> multiple refs, and ways when there is only one ref?<br>
<br>
Yes. It's just a pragmatic approach : I use relations only if I have<br>
no easier alternative. Like a building : if it's a simple polygon, I<br>
don't use relations. If it has a courtyard, I create a multipolygon<br>
relation. In other words, it's not because some buildings need a<br>
multipolygon relation that we should create a multipolygon relation<br>
for each building.<br>
<br>
Pieren<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</blockquote></div>