On 2 June 2013 19:11, Steve Brook <srbr...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > Should the parent relation be a route_master is that just for buses? I am > considering splitting it into three separate child relations, one for each > side of the triangle. This would overcome the problem I faced where you > have to retrace your steps near the cathedrals in order to start the next > section of the walk (repeating ways in a relation is messy). Does anyone > have any strong objections to be doing this? >
Just over a year ago I converted the South West Coast Path into a super-relation. (There's some discussion of the reasons why somewhere in this mailing list). I broke the route into the 52 sections described by the management body. So there is precedent for doing this. When the whole route is broken up into child relations it would helpful if those sections were intuitive or existed 'on the ground'. I also think it's very helpful if the a wiki webpage is created explaining the super and child relations with links to the webpage in the relations. This is what I did for the South West Coast Path. I also added a note to the super relation and each child relation to futher reduce chances of mappers making blunders when working with the relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_West_Coast_Path The details of the super-relation can be seen here. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2376086 Jason
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb