[OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[Werner Hoch]

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.:
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159&_noCache=on
> 
> This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste 
> of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways?
> 
> I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken 
> over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it?

They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are 85000
relations of that kind in the database. (10000 in DE, only 100 in UK)

Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full
name, wikipedia/data link, ...

The relation builds a single object for a specific road
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884

Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I wouldn't
create extra relations.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159


In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only on
the way or on the relation?
While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks like
missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ...

"Relations are not Categories" discussion:
Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the
specific "category" with a database request?

just my 2 cents.

This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325

Regards
Werner (werner2101)