On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/11/30 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: > > In the example you are pointing, 6 of the 9 relations are for the Bus > > 311. I never map public transport relations but I've seen its modeling > > expanding very far in complexity in recent time (fault is also because > > some routes are complexe anyway). The amount of route relations will > > increase in the future, this is unavoidable. I personally don't care > > about such relations until they make our normal edits unmanageable. > > > every (route) relation makes highway editing more complicated, e.g. > when you have to split a single highway into a dual carriageway you > will have to know on which of the ways you have to put the route > relation, and maybe you will also have to split the relation into 2 > (forward, backward).
You could try with this: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ijjarvin/osm/git/onewayer.git ...It's far from perfect but handles forward/backward roles currently very quite ok and :forward/:backward tags too (iirc, those without role won't get handled right though). And in T-junctions some minor cleanup might be needed afterwards but once you get used to that it's quite trivial to do that efficiently manually too. I'm almost done with my area dual carriage splits so implementing more functionality just for myself is not worth it anymore but ideally it would also be capable of handling full T/+ junctions instead of only straight segments it currently does (more complex junctions needs to be split in stages). -- i. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
