[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail

[Ian Sergeant]

On 30 November 2013 14:56, Mander Li <mander2li at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> No such problem. There is one and only one official route that walker, MTB
> and horse are able to take on; ie the existing 3 relations should be exactly
> the same.

Cool.  So obviously you have the right idea that they should be de-duplicated.

> The BNT is too long to be maintained in one relation. The recommended size
> of a relation is 300 members (see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size). Even if it is separated
> into 3 relations (one for each state), it is well over the recommended size.
> Actually, to reduce the size problem, it'd better to have 12 BNT relations -
> one for each BNT guidebook.

Yeah - personally I'd ignore the wiki, but that's just me.

We have relations for admin boundaries for entire countries, and
relations for cross-country railways and highways.  They'd seriously
break if we made them into relations and super-relations just to
satisfy someone's idea of how many is manageable.

Ian.