[Talk-us] Rewriting route direction documentation to emphasize subrelations

[stevea]

I have yet to digest all of this and try / evaluate Minh’s tool (thanks in advance!) though I’ll weigh in that some bicycle route development (USBR 66 in California) collides with this somewhat, in that it goes against “what route=bicycle network=ncn routes do” conventions.

I find sub- and super- relations to be “my most straightforward” method of dealing with route relations, which do get hierarchical.  The invention of cycle_network (I believe Minh’s genius) helps a great deal with this, though it has its own what might be called “messiness” (despite efforts to suggest order to the moderate chaos).

OSM is what OSM is.  Can and should we improve it?  Yes.  Should all “similar” routes look identical everywhere?  Well, to some degree (in a state, in a nation, on a continent…), yes, it is good if/as/when we do that.  It’s a lot of work, it is a liquid, moving target.  Long-term meets short term meets “somebody came up with a new (better?) method to do this” all at the same time.

I’m glad it’s a weekend and I can throw some research time into this.  Thanks to all for good dialog (tool creation…) so far!  Dialog is how we solve (or at least better) this.