On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:54:52 +0100, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > I don't think Dave was thinking of anything more than two different > relations (partly) using the same ways. That would not warrant any > special kind of relation. > > For situations in which you want relations contained in relations - e.g. > in a situation where a nationwide cycle route comprises 5.000 ways and > thus cannot be expressed in one single relation -, what I suggest is > creating a number of "sub relations" that are members of a "super > relation" with the same tags as the "sub relation". (The super relation > might have a different "name" tag from the sub relations, in case you > want to name your sub-relations "blah cycleway, southern section" or so). > > The "sub relations" will not receive any extra tags saying that they are > sub relations.
Some hint that a super-relation exists would be helpfull here. Else it will happen that the sub-relation AND the super-relation are processed (in my case: rendered if they are tagged as "type=street"). I could of cause internally add such a hint automatically with a tag in a special namespace that is removed before exporting/uploading that part of the map again (so it never ends up in the main-map or an editor). Marcus _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
