[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

Phake Nick c933103 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 14 22:25:35 UTC 2019

It really depends on exactly how complex the route is, something like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4776035 this bus route can
definitely use it. (and I haven't mentioned other similar bus routes with
different numbers in different relationship yet)

在 2019年3月15日週五 03:31,Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> 寫道:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 18:17 schreef Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are
>>>> shared with other routes,
>>> I see that as less than useful for any route I know of.
>> It's useful for longer routes through walking/cycling node networks,
>> using the network signposting.
> Yeah, I can see it would be.  And for longer bus routes.  Just not for any
> of the bus routes I know
> around here and am likely to map.  You end up with the only common
> segments being very short
> around a central bus station, then they all diverge.  Once diverged, there
> is nothing to share.
> I'm not against such sharing in principle, where it makes sense.  But if
> it comes at the price
> that all bus stops have to be in the aggregate relation and not in the
> subroutes then it becomes
> useless for my purposes.  And I freely admit that my purposes are a fairly
> rare case, but I'd
> still like to handle it.
> --
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190315/4919fcd6/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list