[OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant

Dave Stubbs osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Mon Apr 7 13:46:40 BST 2008


On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <rjmunro at arjam.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
>  |
>  |> If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the
>  |> route of the A11 information. If the road just has 2 numbers, then it
>  |> isn't - just a semi-colon in the ref would do.
>  |
>  | But bearing in mind that this section _isn't_ the A11 and to tag it
>  | as such is therefore wrong, then we map the facts on the ground - and
>  | that's "signage=A14 (A11)". Of course, if you want to go round
>  | tagging every single sign then good luck to you, but...
>
>  It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of
>  maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of view of someone
>  following the route of the A11 to get somewhere. Therefore it should be
>  in a relationship as part of the A11, but should not be tagged "ref=A11".

I hate to say it, but if it's not the A11 from the point of view of
who is in charge of it, then it isn't the A11, and any route you
generate will likely be fairly subjective.
I think the failure here is in the assumption UK road refs represent
routes, when it seems they don't, even if they sometimes look like
they do. Other countries clearly have a different approach where use
of a route relation is much more applicable.

The difference probably isn't worth worrying about much, except to
point out that relations aren't really necessary to model the UK's
road refs even if they are desirable for other reasons.

Dave




More information about the talk mailing list