On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant <ina...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing > against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In > fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of > the National Route 1 and the diversionary highway routes, like State Highway > 60 - at least that is well defined. > > I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and > confusing.
So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most, if not all routes won't be contiguous, Ross pointed this out the other day but there is often on/off ramps, roads going from dual to single carriage way and back again, then you also have roundabouts, there is all sorts of reasons why gaps exists, but that is even more reason to have routes for them, so that the bits that are named Princess Highway can be tagged as such, and if bits are included that shouldn't be then remove the bits not the entire route. > I really think verifiability is the key for routes, if we start adding stuff > to the map that isn't on the ground or can't be verified... That may be a goal, but it doesn't mean it should be the only one, the process of mapping is one of going from some information to better information, and this is a continual process as things change over time, not just the fact that better sources of data can be mapped from. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au