2010/9/1 Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino <da...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote: >> >>> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a >>> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different >>> classifications, different tags, whatever). >> >> See, for example: >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/143031 >> >> That's a street with different classifications, a oneway-segment, and a >> dual-carriageway one. > > No, I know what you're grouping. It's the why that I'm unsure about. > Where's the benefit in this relation?
For starters, David's idea was not about grouping segments of a street for the sake of it, but to group segments of a street AND house number nodes. Furthermore, this could help routers in "finding a street", matching one relation rather than a handful of ways. I agree with Elena though. While I see the point in not having a dedicated relation for housenumbers (which associatedStreet is), I agree that route doesn't seem the most appropriate choice. I wouldn't be able to suggest a better alternative, though. Ciao, Simone _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
