-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Stubbs wrote: | On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> Richard Fairhurst wrote: |> |> | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: |> | |> |> If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the |> |> route of the A11 information. If the road just has 2 numbers, then it |> |> isn't - just a semi-colon in the ref would do. |> | |> | But bearing in mind that this section _isn't_ the A11 and to tag it |> | as such is therefore wrong, then we map the facts on the ground - and |> | that's "signage=A14 (A11)". Of course, if you want to go round |> | tagging every single sign then good luck to you, but... |> |> It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of |> maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of view of someone |> following the route of the A11 to get somewhere. Therefore it should be |> in a relationship as part of the A11, but should not be tagged "ref=A11". | | I hate to say it, but if it's not the A11 from the point of view of | who is in charge of it, then it isn't the A11, and any route you | generate will likely be fairly subjective.
It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say "A14 (A11)". This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network. Going back on topic, fundamentally, I can't see how you can argue that it is wrong to connect all the ways forming a large numbered road with a relationship, which seems to be what Richard is arguing. It seems to me that it is exactly what relationships are for. Robert (Jamie) Munro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH+ibsz+aYVHdncI0RAiAxAKCAhocz62EgTHZCKF3Z/6EF6D2yjgCg29c2 ngicRCABnBM0n6gh6FPuA4g= =+owL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
