[OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant

[Andrew McCarthy]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:25:11PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
> Which bits you use to connect the disjointed sections are a rather 
> arbitrary decision - should OSM be making such decisions?  I mean, there is 
> no officially documented "this is how you get between these sections" route 
> so we would be making a route up arbitrarilly.
>
> Sure, for some stuff it might be obvious, but for a lot of stuff it isn't.  
> Take the A31, for example - it joins the M3 near Winchester but then 
> reappears on the westerly end of the M27.  You might say that the M3 and 
> M27 is "obviously" the missing link and add that to the A31 relation, but 
> that would be completely unsuitable for cyclists.  This really isn't the 
> job for submitters, this is the job for a route planner program - 
> submitters are supposed to be recording data, not making relatively 
> arbitrary decisions about which routes people should take.

Okay, I take your point. In Ireland I'm not aware of any such extreme
examples (except the N3), with most disjoins being only a few hundred
metres at most.

In that case, would the use of highway relations be restricted to such
cases where there is one *official* route, with differing refs? For
example, National Primary Road 7 in Ireland is the entire road from
Dublin to Limerick. It's called the N7, but for those portions where
it's a motorway, it's the M7. In this case ref=M7;N7 would only be
appropriate for the motorway if N7 was guaranteed not to appear.

:)

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080408/71dec662/attachment.pgp>