[Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

[Brad Neuhauser]

What about just combining the relations for selected states where the AT
crosses back and forth across the state border, like TN/NC and VA/WV?

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:

>
> > On May 2, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Mike N <niceman at att.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/2/2016 11:41 AM, Elliott Plack wrote:
> >> This got me thinking, is there any specific need to have the route
> >> broken up by state? Unlike interstate highways, where maintenance
> >> changes across state lines, at the border, the AT maintenance is handled
> >> by a trifecta of federal agencies and a non-profit. There are also 31
> >> clubs that share some of the maintenance on some sections.
> >
> >  The advantage of breaking up a relation into smaller relations is to
> minimize the probability of edit conflicts.  I don't know how often things
> change, or more detail is added on the Appalachian Trail.   My tendency
> would be to leave it separated, but I have no strong opinion either way.
>
> I am with Mike here. The state boundary offers an obvious and visible
> opportunity to slice up potentially unwieldy relations into smaller chunks.
> Huge relations make editing trickier (conflicts, relation member
> management, loading times) and data processing potentially more time and
> memory consuming.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160502/e3ef03e7/attachment.html>