[OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

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

Andrew McCarthy wrote:
| On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:33:31PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
|> But a motorway which is not a continuous road (i.e. has gaps in it) is
|> _not_ a single road - I see no reason why it should be treated as one.
|> Maybe you could cite some examples of why you need to treat it as a
single
|> road, even though it has gaps in it?
|
| Can we not have both?
|
| (1) A relation which contains all the ways that define a road according
| to its official designation, whether a single road, or several disjoint
| pieces.
|
| 	and
|
| (2) A relation for that road's notional "route", that contains the
| relation above *plus* the (usually obvious) connecting bits that give
| you a single, long distance route from A to B.
|
| Different people will find the two options useful. Or am I missing
| something here?

That's my point of view, but this thread started with Richard saying we
can't have /either/.

The second option was really me saying "look, if a road was a
relationship, that would open other great things, like we could link in
these other bits with a special role - relationships /are/ brilliant!"
But to my surprise, rather than people thinking that linking those bits
of road might be a nice added feature, they started quoting highway
regulations back at me insisting that the roads must be kept separate.
It's not my opinion that we /must/ link in the connecting parts, just
that it might be a nice feature.

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

iD8DBQFH+4fiz+aYVHdncI0RAsGMAJ4z+jJovvCgMWIW5ce8hqw9jwkBvQCfUMFx
3uOeVAl9D230qOWKkgjPG5E=
=AjW7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----