I have seen park roads that were accessible to the public only during specified
daylight hours. Using them after park closing time would likely lead to
trespassing charges. So, an opening_hours tag on those roadways would make
sense.
On August 23, 2014 4:55:15 AM CDT, Christian Quest <cqu...@openstreetmap.fr>
wrote:
> Deleting, deleting...
>
> First we should try to understand the meaning, the purpose of any data
> that
> has been contributed by someone else that we don't understand.
>
> I understand the purpose and meaning of the first two relations. Each
> of
> them describe a route, so the type=route / route=road looks ok to me .
> The second one does not provide much more info than the members
> already
> provide, but let's consider it will improve in the future with for
> example
> an operator=* tag.
>
> For the third one, I don't understand it.
> It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and I don't
> understand the opening_hours tags.
> What is this supposed to describe ?
>
> Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the
> opening_hours ?
>
>
>
> 2014-08-23 11:18 GMT+02:00 Werner Hoch <werner...@gmx.de>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.:
> > >
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159&_noCache=on
> > >
> > > This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a
> waste
> > > of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways?
> > >
> > > I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys
> taken
> > > over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it?
> >
> > They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are
> 85000
> > relations of that kind in the database. (10000 in DE, only 100 in
> UK)
> >
> > Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full
> > name, wikipedia/data link, ...
> >
> > The relation builds a single object for a specific road
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884
> >
> > Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I
> wouldn't
> > create extra relations.
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159
> >
> >
> > In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only
> on
> > the way or on the relation?
> > While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks
> like
> > missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ...
> >
> > "Relations are not Categories" discussion:
> > Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the
> > specific "category" with a database request?
> >
> > just my 2 cents.
> >
> > This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it?
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325
> >
> > Regards
> > Werner (werner2101)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive
out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
