[Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
niceman at att.net
Sun Feb 7 20:17:23 GMT 2010
There is no 1000-member hard-cap on relationship. However, it becomes awkward to edit huge relationships spanning many states since the likelihood for conflicting changesets increases.
The Wiki does contain a modification based on the September discussion, but it's very difficult to understand that the preferred method is one relation per state, tied together with a super-relation. Perhaps the paragraph with "two different approaches for indicating which direction a particular way" should be noted as valid existing tagging, but should be discouraged for future work.
The Super-Relation column in the Wiki should be a flag to anyone needing to update a section of interstate.
From: Chris Hunter
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 1:58 PM
To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org ; talk at openstreetmap.org ; newbies at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
According to the WIKI and some discussions back in April (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html) and again in September (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html), the US Interstate system was going to be moved into a new schema where each direction of each interstate would be split at the state border to avoid hitting API 0.6's 1000-member hard-cap on relationships.
Last night, user NE2 "cleaned up" the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us