<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Where was the discussion. Do you have a link?<br>
<br>
I think the relation of the 'route' should be purely the ways &
if there's an actual requirement*, the signs should be included as a
part of a super relation
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Super-Relation">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Super-Relation</a> <br>
<br>
* Is there a requirement? Doesn't the route tell you where to go,
& calculates how far to destination?<br>
<br>
I'm slightly concerned a super relation would turn into a similar
mess that PTv2 Stop Areas have become, where almost anything
remotely near a transport stop is added to it. <br>
<br>
DaveF <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/07/2020 17:14, pangoSE wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0A1D0F8C-3E07-412D-857A-C7A5B67C4127@riseup.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi<br>
<br>
Recently it was discussed whether to have signposts in route
relations. I suggest we delete them from all relations by running
a script.<br>
I se no loss of information doing that and a benefit to data
consumers wanting to sort and calculate the length and height
profile of the relation which I think should only contain unclosed
ways belonging to the route.<br>
<br>
What do you think?
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>