[OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant

[David Ebling]

I'm firmly with Richard so far on this discussion.

On one of the issues, Robert, your understanding of
what "A14 (A11)" means seems very different to mine.
If I understand you correctly, you're arguing the road
should be tagged A11 because it has signs saying (A11)
on it, meaning that it's part of at A11 route.

As I understand it the sign says (A11) only because
the road leads to the A11. Thus many other roads that
lead to the A11 will have (A11) marked on signs, which
do not fill a gap between two roads that are
*actually* the A11, but just lead to a junction with
the A11.

eg:
        A14
         |
         |
A11------+
         |
         |
         +--------+-------A11
         |        |
         |        |
        A14     Bxxxx(A11)

This B road is not in any sense part of the A11, but
could have signs saying (A11).

The "direction signs" link at
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm
states the following:

"Motorways shown in brackets can also be reached along
the route indicated."

Thus a slip road onto the M23 northbound could have a
sign with "M23 (M25)" on it. In no sense is the M23
part of the M25, nor should it ever be tagged as such,
nor included in a relation as such.

Signs next to the carriageway away from junctions are
just confirmation signs of which route you are on, and
road references in brackets are still merely
indicating that the route you are on leads to that
road.

I still don't understand the need to have a single
contiguous relation for the A11. The A11 isn't
contiguous. You could make a route relation, but I'm
unsure of it's value.

Dave


> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:51:43 +0100
> From: "Robert (Jamie) Munro" <rjmunro at arjam.net>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always
> brilliant

> 
> 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
> 



      ___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference  

http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/