[Talk-us] question: relations & divided highways

[Richard Welty]

given that there is apparent concensus that Interstate relations be done 
on a state-by-state
basis, perhaps the language on the Interstate_Highways_Relations page 
should be updated:

Avoid relation proliferation, if possible. If a relation already exists 
for the route you are
tagging, you can reuse the existing relation in your area. In Potlatch, 
do a relation search
on the existing relation's number.

perhaps should become:

Avoid relation proliferation, if possible. Interstate Highway relations 
should be on a state-by-state
basis, e.g. I-90 in MA, I-90 in NY, I-90 in PA, and so forth.
If a suitable relation already exists for the route you are tagging, you 
can reuse the existing relation
in your area. In Potlatch, do a relation search on the existing 
relation's number.