Tobias Knerr wrote: > If two instances are created at least somewhat independently*
This is a really bold assumption. I'm having a hard time to imagine a real-life scenario, where this is true. On the other hand, I can imagine scenarios where the cross-check will fail simply, because someone who edited way, forgot to edit the relation as well and vice versa. > However, at this point we can begin to use automated error checking. The > idea is that errors that can be found automatically are much more > acceptable than those that cannot. > > With only one instance of the data, none of the errors can found > automatically. You can spot a lot of errors just by doing a simple analysis of the route graph - Are individual segments continuous? Is the resulting route a simple linear feature? ...Yes, it's not 100% accurate, but the alternative (data duplication + cross-checks) is neither. By this you can catch most of the important errors and don't have to rely on duplicated data. I think it's better to spend some time in developing more sophisticated QA tools, then to waste it on data duplication. -- Actually, we have talked about this issue in talk-cz (Czech Republic) recently. One guy made a simple analysis tool for finding "holes" in our road network left by the redaction bot - the tools simply collected all ways with e.g. highway=primary+ref=## and run some checks on them. Consequently, the question why do we add the ref tag to every single way was raised and that it would be a good idea to move it to some parent relation. AFAIK, we don't use (m)any route relations in our road network yet. Best regards, Petr Morávek
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
