[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 7 06:30:56 BST 2011
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant <inas66 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing
> against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In
> fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of
> the National Route 1 and the diversionary highway routes, like State Highway
> 60 - at least that is well defined.
> I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and
So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route
because it isn't contiguous?
Most, if not all routes won't be contiguous, Ross pointed this out the
other day but there is often on/off ramps, roads going from dual to
single carriage way and back again, then you also have roundabouts,
there is all sorts of reasons why gaps exists, but that is even more
reason to have routes for them, so that the bits that are named
Princess Highway can be tagged as such, and if bits are included that
shouldn't be then remove the bits not the entire route.
> I really think verifiability is the key for routes, if we start adding stuff
> to the map that isn't on the ground or can't be verified...
That may be a goal, but it doesn't mean it should be the only one, the
process of mapping is one of going from some information to better
information, and this is a continual process as things change over
time, not just the fact that better sources of data can be mapped
More information about the Talk-au