[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Tue Feb 9 01:23:38 GMT 2010


On 2/8/10 8:01 PM, Chris Hunter wrote:
>
>
> Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the 
> only one to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) 
> vs 1 relation with rolls per state question.
>
> The Diff code is a little tangled, but from the WIKI, it looks like 
> only interstates I-24, I-26, I-84 were merged from 2-relations into 
> 1-relation with roles.  The rest of the system still has the relation 
> numbers listed in the WIKI.  From what I can see, it looks like 
> there's no clear winner between the two systems, although quite a few 
> Interstates are still missing supers.
>
> I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer 
> the 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find 
> areas that need to be split into dual carriageways.
i prefer using one relation per direction, and that's what i've been 
doing. if the consensus should
sway the other way, i won't engage in a lot of public whining about it, 
though.

richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100208/b2d50adc/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list