[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Mar 13 23:12:27 UTC 2019


On 14/03/19 00:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 14:31 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <smz at smz.it 
> <mailto:smz at smz.it>>:
>
>     If a "/superroute/" has an official status (/like this one:
>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20773/), I'm all-in for that.
>
>     If instead it is something "/invented/" by the mapper, than I'm
>     all-against it.
>
>     Can you please provide more information/examples/context?
>
>
>
> there are really long relations (e.g. Via Francigena / St. Francis 
> Way, or European E-Routes, which cross half of Europe). Splitting them 
> into smaller pieces helps reducing editing conflicts (2 people editing 
> the same object at the same time). This is often done along 
> administrative boundaries (regional, national).
>

Supper relation 176684 the Bicentennial National Trail is over 5,000 km 
long, split into 4 sub relations at present.


Many bus routes in cities follow the same route in small sections. It 
would be hand for them to share that part as a sub route - meaning any 
updating of that sub route (people adding turn restrictions, parking, 
curbing etc) only changes that sub route rather than 4 or more 
individual bus routes.


--------------

The splitting of a relation into sub relations is done for many reasons. 
Making it easier for the mapper is of primary importance. I did see on 
the wiki that relations are better with a maximum of 300 members .. 
weather that is true or not I don't know. But it doe make sense that 
with a lot of members the relation becomes harder to handle for both 
maintenance and rendering.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190314/8090c23f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list