[Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles

[john at jfeldredge.com]

A bridge is a physical entity.  Likewise, the roadway is a physical entity.  So, each physical entity can have its own ID.  A route is a logical entity.  It is common for a single way (roadway) to serve as a portion of multiple named routes.  So, it makes sense for a bridge to be associated with a single way, as opposed to multiple routes.

-------Original Email-------
Subject :Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles
From  :mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org
Date  :Sat Feb 05 21:44:10 America/Chicago 2011


On 02/04/2011 01:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 2/3/2011 11:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> underlying ways
>> often have refs that belong to them (like bridge numbers) but not the
>> route itself.
> You've said this a number of times without explanation. Why does the
> bridge number, or ODOT's internal referencing, "belong" to the way,
> while the route number doesn't?

Oregon considers highway numbers and route numbers differently.

>> Bike boulevards are on the same network as each other (well, the
>> Portland ones, are, at any rate; note I'm not referring to official
>> routes for state highways like 99 or federal highways like 205 or 84
>> since you're talking about city bike boulevards).
> 
> Speaking of this, I don't think it's appropriate to mark the cycleways
> that parallel I-84 and I-205 as ncn just because they parallel highways
> on the national motor network.

Never mind Oregon gets federal dollars to maintain those third roadways
for those federal ways, eh?


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria