Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> writes: > There being multiple relations for the same walking route is something > that happens every day, not because of the size limit but because > someone working on a local bit of the route might not be aware of > someone else working on another local bit until they meet. It is > actually *easier* to then combine the parts in a super relation than to > move all the members from one part-relation to the other. > > I'm pretty sure we'll soon have good tools to work with that kind of > thing. And anyway, if the super-relation is ignored and someone just > sees the smaller parts of the walking route, that's not a big loss is it?
What I don't like here is that this leads to duplication of data. Super-relations are fine, but IMHO tags should be moved to the super-relation. And then it would be a big loss if a renderer doesn't know how to deal with it. What is an application actually supposed to do when the tagging of of a relation contradicts the tagging of its members? For example: a super-relation with "ref=E50" with a member-relation with "ref=E52" which has a way tagged with "ref=E58" Matthias _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk