[Talk-in] National Highway relations are unacceptably huuuuge!

Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) mapper at minoa.li
Sun Jul 24 11:35:22 UTC 2016


It appears there was an oversight in one of changesets for the NH44 relations, where I should have checked that the members were still in the original NH44 relation. The error occurred when I was ordering the NH44 relation.

> On 24 Jul 2016, at 11:27, I Chengappa <imchengappa at gmail.com <mailto:imchengappa at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Heinz_V has made relevant comments in a forum post at http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17851&p=3 <http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17851&p=3>. I've not been paying attention to most road / route relations, but I understand that there has been a coherent mapping of national highways in India, mostly due to him, which has now been broken. As the discussion has primarily been there so far, I suggest that it should continue there. 
> 
> This discussion, between two users over one day and in a separate forum from that discussion, does not constitute general acceptance, even by default. Hence there is an argument for reverting the changes. 
> 
> On 21 July 2016 at 16:25, Arun Ganesh <arun.planemad at gmail.com <mailto:arun.planemad at gmail.com>> wrote:
> This is looking good to me. It would be great to have a diary post on tools/workflow to do this. Have always found handling and modifying these relations painful.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) <mapper at minoa.li <mailto:mapper at minoa.li>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have set up NH765 as a prototype for the reformed relations - NH765 is a small route where it should be easy to fine tune the idea before full-scale conversion.
> 
> The base route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741>) would only contain sub-relations with for each State that it passes through with appropriate role names (as the E-route system already does).
> 
> The sub-relations, for Telangana (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946>) and Andhra Pradesh (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980>) in our case, would contain appropriately ordered ways, with the main route on top and links (slip roads) at the bottom.
> 
> I envisage that one relation for each state should be sufficient for the time being.
> 
> — Amaroussi.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-in at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arun Ganesh
> @planemad
>  <http://j.mp/ArunGanesh>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-in at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-in at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-in/attachments/20160724/3dd767a1/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-in mailing list