Ben Laenen wrote:
On Wednesday 31 August 2011 15:12:05 Gerard Vanderveken wrote:
It makes perfect sense to me and I totally agree.
But I assume you mean ways in stead of nodes in 'So the route relations
should only contain (a preferably) continuous set of nodes'
On top of that, I find it handy when the route realations have a name,
so it is easy to see which are the relations of a road.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/73069100
When they have 2 or 3 meaningful letters in front (followed by a space)
of the numbers, you can also easily see on the hike or bike maps which
network is in place
eg ZD 239-240 = Zuid-Dijleland from node 239 to 240
Do not give names to the route relations of cycle and walking node networks.
They don't have names so you shouldn't invent one. Use the "note=*" tag for
what you want to put in the name tag, and JOSM will gladly show the note to
you in the relation list.
Greetings
Ben
That is OK for JOSM, but a list like this (at the bottom) is simply not
meaningful.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9175555?relation_page=3
This is much clearer.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9132576
altough a short name would also do:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1641610
The route name is not 'invented', everyone referr to it as the route
from node A to node B
So why not formalize it?
I guess the province has internally a similar naming.
That it is not on streetsigns is no objection for me.
Tracks and paths from roads of the Atlas don't have official names
either, and yet it makes perfect sense to name them as numbered in the
atlas as eg Buurtweg 23, Sentier 45, etc.)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.82162&lon=4.61208&zoom=15&layers=M
Regards,
Gerard.
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
