Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

2017-01-24 Thread Martijn van Exel
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

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

2017-01-23 Thread Paul Johnson
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

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

2017-01-23 Thread Martijn van Exel
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

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

2017-01-23 Thread Paul Johnson
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

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

2017-01-22 Thread richiekennedy56
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.

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

2017-01-22 Thread Paul Johnson
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

[Talk-us] I think I got this right...

2017-01-21 Thread richiekennedy56
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