On 17 March 2011 12:29, Ed Loach <e...@loach.me.uk> wrote: > Craig wrote: > >> A practical approach would seem to be for an implementation to >> accept >> multiple instances of the street role, as either ways or > relations. >> Where a child-relation of role=street is treated as a collection > of >> segments. > > It does seem logical. Especially as any street currently mapped with > an associatedStreet relation which is then split at a later date (by > someone adding a bus route, change in speed limit, or whatever > reason they split it) will end up as an associatedStreet relation > with two street members anyway in all likelihood. I doubt the > editors are at a stage where they can split such a relation into two > separate relations and get the right houses with the correct street > section automatically (and for some streets I can imagine this will > never be possible automatically reliably anyway). I'd be surprised > if there aren't already a number of associatedStreet relation with > more than one street member, but not sure how easy it would be to > find out.
I'm commonly creating associatedStreet relations with multiple role=street members since there's no other way to easily map reality. I don't think it should be a problem. Most likely the people who first defined the relation didn't consider the possibility of split streets. I certainly don't consider it a 'bug' in the postcode finder. As for statistics on this, it should be quite easy for me to make a measurement this evening. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
