[Talk-us] I think I got this right...

[Martijn van Exel]

The only problem I can see is that you may then have three levels of relation hierarchy[1] which I find troublesome because it will make numbered route management harder for most people to know how to do.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like the complexity of having to maintain each member role either, but I think this could be more easily fixed by smart JOSM parsing (or a JOSM plugin) than having more levels of relations. I also think the member role approach would probably sit better with the international community.

Martijn

[1] Super-super-relation for state, super-relation for cardinal direction, relations for each direction.

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org <mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org>> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org <mailto:m at rtijn.org>> wrote:
> Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what the cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our you slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east / west / north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted relationship hierarchy. What is your thought on indicating cardinal direction in this case if not as member role?
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem is with child relations with direction=* tags as one of the relation tags is exactly.  Sure, takes more to set up, but it's easier to maintain long term.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170124/d4e0ccbd/attachment.html>