[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?
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...
More information about the Tagging