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

[Christian Quest]

Deleting, deleting...

First we should try to understand the meaning, the purpose of any data that
has been contributed by someone else that we don't understand.

I understand the purpose and meaning of the first two relations. Each of
them describe a route, so the type=route / route=road looks ok to me .
The second one does not provide much more info than the members already
provide, but let's consider it will improve in the future with for example
an operator=* tag.

For the third one, I don't understand it.
It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and  I don't
understand the opening_hours tags.
What is this supposed to describe ?

Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the
opening_hours ?



2014-08-23 11:18 GMT+02:00 Werner Hoch <werner.ho at gmx.de>:

> 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)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20140823/33e76149/attachment.html>