The only problem I can see is that you may then have three levels of relation
hierarchy[1] which I find troublesome because it will make numbered route
management harder for most people to know how to do.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like the complexity of having to
maintain each
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what
> the cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our
> you slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for
Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what the
cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our you
slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east / west /
north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:08 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote
>
> > It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations
> exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't,
>
> > and the gap becomes
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote
> It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations
> exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't,
> and the gap becomes immediately apparent. As tagged, most tools (JOSM
> included) won't "get" it.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:11 PM, wrote:
> Regarding the use of child relations for routes, and what to do about
> directional roles on beltways, I made some mapping changes to a beltway
> that happens to be local to me.
>
>
>
> I took the relation for I-435[1] and
Regarding the use of child relations for routes, and what to do about
directional roles on beltways, I made some mapping changes to a beltway that
happens to be local to me.
I took the relation for I-435[1] and “cloned” it into 2 new relations in
JOSM[2][3]. I then deleted all ways from the in
7 matches
Mail list logo