Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:12 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: > > Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should > > try to reduce the different types one by one. > > Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly to street :P > > > > (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and > > > type=route + > > > route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be > > > route=road) > > > > AFAIK type=route + route=road is different to the street relations. > > road routes: primary, secondary road routes with the same ref. > > street: houses and highway elements with the same name/address. > > That's exactly what I'm saying, see below. > From your originally linked page, I can see there are some route=street > around. > I was saying that these should be merged too. My reference to route=road was > that, if a route=street has a ref=, this should really be a route=road. So > there shouldn't be *any* route=street around.
Yes. But you have to look inside all route=street relations to make a judge wether it should be a road=route or a street (or associatedStreet). > Regarding route=road, here is one more thought. In some cases, people (I, for > one, in my beginnings) use route=road to link different pieces of a ref-less > street: this is wrong. But surely this can't be done automatically :) Cleanup is hard and timeconsuming work ;-) Regards Werner _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
