Richard - true. It's sort of a chicken vs egg situation. As long as there is no clear use case for one or the other, both practices will remain in use. That's why I was so excited to see work continue on the shield rendering which uses the refs on the relations. As I mentioned, at Telenav we also pretty much solely rely on the relation refs for the route numbers (and the relation member roles for the cardinal direction, if we can come to a consensus about that.) These things may help us converge on one way of doing things.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > On 11/30/13 4:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the current >> status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags >> (see I-394 example below). > > > I can't wait until we can finally kill this dinosaur. Refs, as they're > presently tagged on ways, almost always apply to the route instead of the > way. And not to mention they're just a pain in the butt to maintain > properly where multiplexes exist, something that works cleanly in relations. > > we're kind of stuck with ref on the ways until the data > and data consumers come up to speed. there are a lot > of route relations still to be built in the US. > > richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us