[OSM-newbies] Route Relations

[Mike Thompson]

Mike, Richard,

Thanks!  I will leave as one relation, and will consider changing the roles
of the spurs to "link."

Mike


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:

> Mike Thompson wrote:
> > Should the relation be split in two and a super relation created
> > containing both?
>
> No. Super-relations create complexity both for the mapper and the data
> user.
> There is no need to use them if you don't have to. In this case, the fact
> that the two sections are disjoint can be found by examining the geometry:
> there's therefore no need to recreate this meaning in the metadata
> structure.
>
> > Also, is it good practice to have a route relation that "forks" or
> > has spurs [...]
> > Should this also handled with a super relation?
>
> IME these are often handled with relation roles. For example, link routes
> connecting to the main 'trunk' of a UK National Cycle Network route are
> frequently added to the main relation, but with a role of 'link'.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Route-Relations-tp5758371p5758390.html
> Sent from the Newbies mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20130424/21b53f83/attachment.html>