[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
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,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk