[Talk-us] cardinal directions
baloo at ursamundi.org
Fri Jan 20 07:23:30 UTC 2017
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
> Martijn van Exel
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
>> I am trying to be consistent with the outcome of the discussion that we
>> had on talk-us a couple of years ago. Right now both are used
>> (north/south/east/west as relation member role as well as direction on the
>> relation tag) but the former is used way more often. That’s why I am
>> suggesting going with the practice that has surfaced as the most popular,
>> as well as the outcome of earlier discussion.
>> Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly, but I am *not* suggesting
>> to use tags on ways to indicate cardinal direction, just assign roles to
>> relation members. Agreed that adding this type of info to ways makes it
>> impossible to validate / maintain.
> Right, I think we're on the same page. I'm also suggesting it's high time
> we revisited the issue as the tools to handle managing
> north/east/south/west roles (as opposed to forward/backward) just plain
> never materialized. If it was going to happen, it would have already
> happened (it's been years!).
> What tools were you thinking about? I remember submitting a patch to JOSM
> a while ago which did not get accepted.. That’s all I did on the tools end
> of things. Agreed support could be better.
JOSM first and foremost since it's the only editor and validator that seems
to pay much attention to directionality. Other tools (trying to think of
the name of the tool right now and coming up blank that I'm thinking of
specifically) seem to validate cleanly if there's one continuous path end
to end, order and direction regardless (so a fairly broken relation would
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us