[Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

Chris Hunter chunter952 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 01:26:36 GMT 2010


On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <aschoell at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Why does there need to be 2 relations for this?
>>
>> besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API
> 0.6 You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes
> this is a must. 2 relations may use the same road in different directions.
> on a highway ref one can argue this is not needed but it's still a good
> idea.
>
>

Another thing to remember is that the relation analyzer and relation
browsers don't support super-relations *yet*.  My gut feeling is that if we
start using super-relations in a consistent manner, it's more likely that
the analyzer (and hopefully the API) will begin supporting them
consistently.

In the long run, using super-relations to create relation hierarchies would
allow us to separate physical attributes of a way (or node) from the logical
attributes of a route.

 _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100208/f8cefe3c/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list