On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:
> I am trying to be consistent with the outcome of the discussion that we > had on talk-us a couple of years ago. Right now both are used > (north/south/east/west as relation member role as well as direction on the > relation tag) but the former is used way more often. That’s why I am > suggesting going with the practice that has surfaced as the most popular, > as well as the outcome of earlier discussion. > > Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly, but I am *not* suggesting to > use tags on ways to indicate cardinal direction, just assign roles to > relation members. Agreed that adding this type of info to ways makes it > impossible to validate / maintain. > Right, I think we're on the same page. I'm also suggesting it's high time we revisited the issue as the tools to handle managing north/east/south/west roles (as opposed to forward/backward) just plain never materialized. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened (it's been years!). > This also does not have to preclude having separate e/w or n/s relations + > a super relation — I think that is actually good practice for big relations > to keep them manageable. > Pretty much have to for any relation that has a dual carriageway at one end and is more than a few ways long.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
