[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts
> of the trail are accessible to which categories of users.  How do you
> intend to encapsulate that info?
>
> What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and
> putting three relations into another reln?  I don't think relations of
> relations is well supported, and I can't see the motivation for it
> here.
>

Hi guys,
  I noticed the three-way duplication but assumed it was for a different
reason: so that, say, a hiking map that looks for "route=hiking" relations
will show the BNT, a mountain bike map that looks for "route=mtb" will also
show it etc. Unfortunately I think this is basically legitimate: if the
same route is a hiking, cycling and mountain biking route (and we haven't
even done horse riding yet) then it probably needs those duplicates.

(FWIW, that's a bit of an "if" - most of the Victorian section is pretty
useless for cycling, and not great for unsupported hiking either.)

Btw you can see both the BNT and AAWT on my map, http://cycletour.org -
just zoom in a couple of clicks.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20131201/9d2ad144/attachment.html>