[Talk-ca] Route relations

[Martijn van Exel]

(sorry wrong from: address again..)




In the US, we use a hierarchy of network classifications instead. For instance, Interstate 80 would be network=US:I, ref=80, role=east/west depending on if it’s an eastbound / westbound carriageway. This is a really neat and tidy way of organizing route relations. Has this been common practice in Canada as well or something to consider?




Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/280678 for I-80 in Utah




Martijn




—  Martijn van Exel

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Andrew MacKinnon <andrewpmk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> (resending from the correct email address, apologies)
>>
>> Thanks for all the responses to my previous thread. I am partly still
>> processing the input but another topic came up while we were investigating
>> route relations. I can’t seem to find a wiki page on route relations in
>> Canada, or even per province. The exception is Ontario
>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario#Route_relations
>> ). Am I not looking hard enough? Would a ‘relation pages’ for Canada perhaps
>> make sense?
> Several users (OntarioEditor and osm_validation_and_improvements)
> created a whole bunch of relations for Ontario highways and county
> roads, but also added prefixes to roads (ON prefix to provincial
> highways and various prefixes like RR and CR to regional/county roads)
> which many OSM users were unhappy with and which I have been gradually
> reverting. I want to keep the relations though.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20150716/7e8536c4/attachment.html>