On 03/05/2013, at 9:00 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I imagine the RMS in their wisdom are going to call the Hume south of Berrima > the A31, rather than M31, so we'll have to make a call on whether we keep > that as motorway. I'd personally be in favour of doing so. > > Ian. Same also with A1 heading up the coast that are definitely motorway standard. The RMS has stated that these motorway sections won't take on an M designation until they are continuous between major population centres in order to avoid too much switching between A and M, so I think we are right to map these as "Motorway" in OSM - being a high standard (mostly) grade-separated road - because "on the ground" that's exactly what it is… but we have to live with their temporary "A" route designations. With respect to route relations for the M31/A31 and M1/A1, I am guessing we will need to create a relation for the "A" section, and a separate relation for the "M" section… and then perhaps a parent to encompass the entire route. Some aspects of how we treat this confuse me …. For example - name = Pacific Motorway network = M ref = M1 -- should this relationship include Harbour Tunnel to Gore Hill AND Wahroonga to Beresfield AND Brunswick Heads to Brisbane… but then what about south of the Harbour? Then make another M1 relation called Princes Motorway - adding to it the ED, Southern Cross Drv, Southern Freeway? Same confusion applies with these A sections... Or do we create a relation for each discrete "section" (being a contiguous A or M section)… which I personally think is the most manageable, but it leads to a patchwork of many A1 and M1 relations. And either way, then we'll need a parent relation to group them all into something perhaps name = "National Highway 1" ?? network = NH ? ref = 1 ? BJ
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
