> > Yes that's one option. I'm a bit reluctant to put in separate > relations for each direction unless someone actually gives me a > compelling reason to do so. I already have some ways with more than 20 > relations, and I don't really want to double that number without good > reason. >
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.85106&lon=4.75651&zoom=17&layers=M Lijn 7 uses Krijkelberg twice. Bus stop Sint-Kamillus is served by both directions. This can be mapped without ambiguity if there is one relation for each direction. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.881607&lon=4.715&zoom=18&layers=M Bus station in Leuven. It's perfectly clear where the buses will travel. Not so if both directions are in only one relation. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.89623&lon=4.47405&zoom=17&layers=M Brussels Airport http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.89648&lon=4.4759&zoom=17&layers=M All buses serve the airport over a dedicated road. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.86321&lon=4.515999&zoom=18&layers=M In Sterrebeek line 616 makes an extra loop to serve a bus stop on Tramlaan. Sure it would be possible to program something to process a 1 route relation, but it would not be straightforward. Most importantly though, with one route relation per direction, it's a whole lot easier for the mappers to check that the relation is continuous. As far as routes go that have a shorter itinerary during the week, I wouldn't make an extra sets of relations for those. Simply put the longest road traveled in both relations. Jo
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
