Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
Hi Steve, Are you telling me that, for the sake of showing the route in your site http://cycletour.org1. for every rail trail, we should have 4 duplicated relations - bicycle, mtb, walker, horse 2. for every bike route, there should be 3 duplicated relations - bicycle, mtb, walker Why don't you use tags like foot=yes, bicycle=yes, mtb=yes, and horse=yes? Mander ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 30 November 2013 Ian Sergeant wrote: > We have relations for admin boundaries for entire countries, > and relations for cross-country railways and highways. > They'd seriously break if we made them into relations and > super-relations just to satisfy someone's idea of how many > is manageable. FYI the relations you mentioned are much smaller than you think. The relation for admin boundaries for entire Australia (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/80500) has about 50 members only. The longest railway line in Australia should be the Train Indian Pacific from Sydney to Perth. This relation (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2033217) has about 430 members. There is no one big relation for the M1 highway in Australia. It is broken into many short relations. The section from Melbourne to Wodonga (Relation 240718) has 219 members. The section from Newcastle to Lismore (relation 2910576) has 358 members. The longest section may be from Brisbane to Cairns (relation 198279) has 737 members. Back to BNT, the existing 3 relations (2347837, 2347838, 2347839), after removing the errors and duplications,has 193 members each, covering 645km. However, the total length of BNT is 5330km. Therefore if the whole BNT is in one relation, it will have 1594 members - too far away from the recommended 300 members. Mander___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
