Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-25 Thread Aun Yngve Johnsen
I have had a similar thought for the longer Federal Highways in Brazil. Dividing them by state sounds sensible, as BR-101 reaches all the way from the border to Uruguay in the south to the city of Recife in Northeast. If my counting is right, that is 9 states. And there are several other hi

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-25 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/8/25 Nathan Edgars II : >> Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? > It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route > (and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than > ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-25 Thread Nathan Edgars II
Konrad Skeri wrote: > > Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route (and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds nonre

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-25 Thread Mike N.
Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing it because everyone else is. I'm not sure myself. Possibilities are: 1. Hint to routers for good path to follow over long distances without searching all roads.In practice, the latest highly optimized routing algori

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-25 Thread Konrad Skeri
In Sweden the E-roads are also the national ref (with exceptions of Swedish/Norwegian E 6 that is the international E 47 and Swedish E 4 that is international E 55) so I guess we should use both. regards Konrad 2010/8/25 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/8/25 Konrad Skeri : >> Good question. Why are

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-25 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/8/25 Konrad Skeri : > Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing > it because everyone else is. I have a vauge memory of arguments that a > way beloning to several roads are better represented by a relation for > each road instead of having ref=E 12; E 4; 92 one r

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-25 Thread Konrad Skeri
2010/8/25 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/8/24 Konrad Skeri : >> Is there any current usage of super-relations for roads? > > >> This could be resolved by making a relation of E 45 Sorsele >> municipality, E 45 Storuman municipality, E 45 Vilhelmina >> municipality, etc. and then join all of them in t

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-24 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/8/24 Konrad Skeri : > Is there any current usage of super-relations for roads? > This could be resolved by making a relation of E 45 Sorsele > municipality, E 45 Storuman municipality, E 45 Vilhelmina > municipality, etc. and then join all of them in the super-relation E > 45 Sweden, and fin

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-24 Thread Mike N.
Is there any current usage of super-relations for roads? Super-relations have come into wider use in the US on national road networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_relations Minimizing conflicts across huge geographic areas was one of the tipping points in favor

[OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

2010-08-24 Thread Konrad Skeri
Is there any current usage of super-relations for roads? A few months ago I edited the E 45 (and hence its relation) in northern Sweden and when uploading the changes got a conflict since someone else had changed the E 45 after I started editing. (Somewhere in Italy.) So I resolved the conflict an