[OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Stubbs wrote:
| 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.

It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say "A14
(A11)". This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network.

Going back on topic, fundamentally, I can't see how you can argue that
it is wrong to connect all the ways forming a large numbered road with a
relationship, which seems to be what Richard is arguing. It seems to me
that it is exactly what relationships are for.

Robert (Jamie) Munro

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH+ibsz+aYVHdncI0RAiAxAKCAhocz62EgTHZCKF3Z/6EF6D2yjgCg29c2
ngicRCABnBM0n6gh6FPuA4g=
=+owL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----