[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
inas66+osm at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 05:14:28 BST 2011
On 6 September 2011 13:59, Ross Scanlon <info at 4x4falcon.com> wrote:
> But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground.
> All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have to
> be a through route. It may have side branches as in the Sutherland example.
> But if the sign says Old Princes Highway then it should be changed to that
> and removed from the Princes Highway relation. If it's part of another
> named road then use alt_name.
I have surveyed, it is removed from the relation, and consequently the
relation has a gap.
My understanding is for this relation type - a route - gaps are not
allowed. After all, this is the whole point of having a "route" isn't it?
If you find these things on the ground then you need to modify them rather
> than just writing about it here. But don't just delete the whole relation
> because one section is wrong, correct the section(s) that are wrong.
If I thought the sections were possible to correct, I would just do so.
However, with this relation, I see it as hopelessly flawed, and my
inclination is to delete it.
Since there seems to be support for it, I'll leave it be, and move along,
and hope someone else can make more of it.
I do pity the person who has this information currently in their navman, I
think they'll be lost pretty damn quick.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au