[OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[Aun Yngve Johnsen]

I have had a similar thought for the longer Federal Highways in  
Brazil. Dividing them by state sounds sensible, as BR-101 reaches all  
the way from the border to Uruguay in the south to the city of Recife  
in Northeast. If my counting is right, that is 9 states. And there are  
several other highways like that in Brazil.

brgds
Aun Johnsen



On 25/08/2010, at 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2010/8/25 Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>:
>>> Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations?
>> It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a  
>> route
>> (and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a  
>> relation than
>> ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds  
>> nonredundant
>> information for some one-way pairs, where the two directions use  
>> different
>> two-way roads.
>
>
> OK, but putting international roads all in one relation (the E45 is
> 4920 km long) is not required for this scope. If you think how often
> we are splitting ways (bridges, maxspeed, turn_restrictions, oneway,
> etc.) this would get to thousands of members hence lacking
> transparency and being very vulnerable to editing conflicts.
>
> You should split them in several smaller relations, e.g. per region
> (and probably add those relations to super-relations as Konrad
> suggested).
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk