Thomas Wood wrote: > Because so far (with exception of the enforcement relation) > relations have not been voted in, but been accepted once they > gain a significant usage in OSM.
Absolutely. I'm not sure why the need for a specific towpath-waterway relation. Why not just have a general-purpose relation for "association"? It could be augmented with a type if need be, but that's probably unnecessary - if one member's a canal and the other's a towpath, you can deduce it from there. We have a general-purpose relation for routes, rather than a specific cycle one, a walking one, and so on. cheers Richard who has spent the last n days mapping the Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal (sadly not for OSM) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-tagging--Towpath-relation%3A-voting-open-tp21847208p21851406.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
