On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts > of the trail are accessible to which categories of users. How do you > intend to encapsulate that info? > > What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and > putting three relations into another reln? I don't think relations of > relations is well supported, and I can't see the motivation for it > here. > Hi guys, I noticed the three-way duplication but assumed it was for a different reason: so that, say, a hiking map that looks for "route=hiking" relations will show the BNT, a mountain bike map that looks for "route=mtb" will also show it etc. Unfortunately I think this is basically legitimate: if the same route is a hiking, cycling and mountain biking route (and we haven't even done horse riding yet) then it probably needs those duplicates. (FWIW, that's a bit of an "if" - most of the Victorian section is pretty useless for cycling, and not great for unsupported hiking either.) Btw you can see both the BNT and AAWT on my map, http://cycletour.org - just zoom in a couple of clicks. Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
