[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
chunter952 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 01:25:02 GMT 2010
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <aschoell at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Why does there need to be 2 relations for this?
>> besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API
> 0.6 You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes
> this is a must. 2 relations may use the same road in different directions.
> on a highway ref one can argue this is not needed but it's still a good
Another thing to remember is that the relation analyzer and relation
browsers don't support super-relations *yet*. My gut feeling is that if we
start using super-relations in a consistent manner, it's more likely that
the analyzer (and hopefully the API) will begin supporting them
In the long run, using super-relations to create relation hierarchy would
allow us to separate physical attributes of a way (or node) from the logical
attributes of a route.
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk