[Talk-us] Relation roles

[Josh Doe]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:

> Toby Murray wrote:
> > I mentioned something about cardinal direction relation roles on
> > IRC last night and I think it was RichardF thought they were
> > silly because he had no concept of a "north/south" vs "east/west"
> > highway.
>
> Probably not me, but you're right, and it's not a question we have to worry
> about in the UK anyway - we don't need highway route relations because any
> road only has one number.
>
> FWIW, and you should absolutely not listen to me because I'm a long way
> away
> and it's up to you guys to sort yourselves out... but I'd create a separate
> relation for each direction (i.e. one northbound relation, one southbound
> relation) and not bother with roles at all. It's simpler conceptually,
> simpler for the newbie to edit, simpler to process. (If you wanted to, you
> could then have a super-relation for the two relations, though personally I
> wouldn't see the need.)
>

I've been in favor of a single relation for both directions, however I think
I'm questioning that now.
* Where a road predominantly consists of dual carriageways (such as US
Interstates), I think there's no trouble using a single relation, and the
north/south/east/west roles for the appropriate members, however two
relations would be just fine with me as well.
* For roads that consist predominantly of single ways, with perhaps a few
divisions here and there such as near intersections, I think a single
relation makes the most sense, and forward/backward roles are fine if they
are helpful.
* For those roads which are more evenly split between being dual and single
carriageways, I think two relations might make more sense for reasons of
simplicity of editing.

-Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20110629/eae7a630/attachment.html>