[Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

Richard - true. It's sort of a chicken vs egg situation. As long as
there is no clear use case for one or the other, both practices will
remain in use. That's why I was so excited to see work continue on the
shield rendering which uses the refs on the relations. As I mentioned,
at Telenav we also pretty much solely rely on the relation refs for
the route numbers (and the relation member roles for the cardinal
direction, if we can come to a consensus about that.) These things may
help us converge on one way of doing things.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> wrote:
> On 11/30/13 4:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Peter, it would just be for the relations.  It would stay the current
>> status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags
>> (see I-394 example below).
>
>
> I can't wait until we can finally kill this dinosaur.  Refs, as they're
> presently tagged on ways, almost always apply to the route instead of the
> way.  And not to mention they're just a pain in the butt to maintain
> properly where multiplexes exist, something that works cleanly in relations.
>
> we're kind of stuck with ref on the ways until the data
> and data consumers come up to speed. there are a lot
> of route relations still to be built in the US.
>
> richard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/