On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 09:29 +0100, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> >> 2) Why the need for even one? After all, the "ref" tag on all the
> >> component parts of the A1 should identify them without the need for a
> >> relation.
> >
> > True. A relation
SomeoneElse writes:
> 2) Why the need for even one? After all, the "ref" tag on all the
> component parts of the A1 should identify them without the need for a
> relation.
There is of course the complication that parts of the A1 are numbered A1(M).
--
Andrew
__
> -Original Message-
> From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk]
> Sent: 2 June 2011 00:56
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Road route relations in the UK
>
> When looking at a bit of the A1:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/w
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> 2) Why the need for even one? After all, the "ref" tag on all the
>> component parts of the A1 should identify them without the need for a
>> relation.
>
> True. A relation should only be needed if a stretch of road is shared by
> several n
Hi,
SomeoneElse wrote:
1) Why the need for 4 A1 route relations?
I'll leave that to others, but
2) Why the need for even one? After all, the "ref" tag on all the
component parts of the A1 should identify them without the need for a
relation.
True. A relation should only be needed if a st
When looking at a bit of the A1:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/34158443
I happened to notice that it seems to belong to 6 route relations.
There's a bus route, an E road (both of which make sense) and 4 A1s
(which don't), one of which (103597) seems to have a lot more versions
than th
6 matches
Mail list logo
