[Tagging] [Talk-GB] route relations type=road
andrewhainosm at hotmail.co.uk
Mon Dec 7 19:20:02 UTC 2015
But surely I can see no obvious harm in the presence of the relations. Also searching the database by reference doesn’t always work, for instance not all road segments tagged A1 in the UK are part of the road from London to Edinburgh.
From: Chris Hill <osm at raggedred.net>
Sent: 07 December 2015 10:27
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road
On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +0000, Dave F. wrote:
>> I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user:
>> abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations
>> in the UK. Example:
>> Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people
>> that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not
>> just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be
>> collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.
>> I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag
>> duplication which can never be a good thing.
>> Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see
>> no reason for their existence.
> I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
> my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
> to the A161.
> This time he has added a relation for the bits of the A1 that are not
> A1(M), there is already an A1 relation. I again am not sure why we need
> such relations, and the history is too big to view.delete
The author has not responded, so I have deleted the route relation for
A161. I will use changeset comments on any more that I find in the UK to
discuss why they are there - my expectation would be to delete any
others but only after attempting to engage the author.
Cheers, Chris (chillly)
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging