[Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 11.11.2015 um 08:20 schrieb Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:
> >
> > I thought the problem was a 2000 member limitation in the API, though
> the geographic grouping really helps manageability anyway even if the
> network doesn't change at the jurisdiction line
>
>
> making the relations smaller also helps to reduce conflicts


Yeah, for urban areas, I'm considering splitting these at the county lines
to help reduce that potential, particularly with routes traversing Tulsa,
Oklahoma, Canadian, Cleveland and Wagoner counties.  I'm going to examine
that situation more closely once I'm done with detail mapping lane counts,
turn lanes, destinations and junction refs on Interstate 40.  This will
 give me a good idea of what to expect for major midwestern freeways in
terms of how many splits one can reasonably expect on a highly detailed
long-distance freeway in a single largely rural state.  I fully expect this
will be almost certainly necessary for I 5 and US 101 in California as
well, regardless of the results I get here, due to the sheer scale of those
routes (101 is 808.111 mi; 5 is 796.432 mi and both involve some of the
most populous and dense urban centers in the US at multiple locations along
their routes).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20151111/77a3765d/attachment.html>