On 7 November 2012 13:13, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: Wouldn't the route code be better in a relation? I'm sure there will be > some bits of the network which are part of multiple routes. >
Apologies, I meant relation. One or more running lines are grouped together in to a route - it's entirely possible for lines that run parallel (e.g. the line from Watford Junction - Camden Junction runs parallel to the line from Rugby to Euston) to be in completely separate routes, or for a line to change from one route to another mid-way. I'll mull over how to model a change between line names. Why include the word "code" in the tag name for CRS (and nr_route_code) > and not for TIPLOC and STANOX? > TIPLOC stands for Timing Point LOcation Code, so adding 'code' to the end is technically unnecessary. STANOX stands for Station Number, so isn't a code per se. However, for clarity, I'm happy to make them tiploc_code, stanox_code and crs_code, or perhaps prefix them with something else. Peter
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
