--- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM <bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A few questions:
> 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for
> this to work, but
> :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for
> state specific
> sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need
> state).
The states vary on different shields, not just state routes.
> 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there
> doesn't seem to
> be any problem with having just one relation, combining the
> tags. I think
> this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good
> thing).
I haven't started work on state based highways, been working on highway 1
mostly, and it changes names a fair bit, but I still think 2 relations would be
better than lumping it together and for consistency with other highways.
> 3. I think you suggested if there is no underlying street
> name for a section
> of highway, copy/move the name from the relation to the
> way, is that right?
No, if there is no street name don't name the way, this way things will render
better because you won't get highway names going round roundabouts and over
bridges even though they are part of the same highway.
> I'd prefer the other way, where the name is stored in the
> relation so a lot
> of the ways would have no name (the validators/no-names
> maps would need to
> be updated to grab data from relations if they don't
> already do. I think
> this would be a nice clean solution, and matches the
> suggestion ages ago to
> put a street name in a relation when it is broken up by
> many residential
> roundabouts...
Exactly, and bridges, and not naming ways reduces the chance of error, and the
ease to fix up errors, and reduces a lot of redundancy because the same name
doesn't have to be added to 100s of ways.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
