On 14/03/19 00:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 14:31 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <s...@smz.it
<mailto:s...@smz.it>>:
If a "/superroute/" has an official status (/like this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20773/), I'm all-in for that.
If instead it is something "/invented/" by the mapper, than I'm
all-against it.
Can you please provide more information/examples/context?
there are really long relations (e.g. Via Francigena / St. Francis
Way, or European E-Routes, which cross half of Europe). Splitting them
into smaller pieces helps reducing editing conflicts (2 people editing
the same object at the same time). This is often done along
administrative boundaries (regional, national).
Supper relation 176684 the Bicentennial National Trail is over 5,000 km
long, split into 4 sub relations at present.
Many bus routes in cities follow the same route in small sections. It
would be hand for them to share that part as a sub route - meaning any
updating of that sub route (people adding turn restrictions, parking,
curbing etc) only changes that sub route rather than 4 or more
individual bus routes.
--------------
The splitting of a relation into sub relations is done for many reasons.
Making it easier for the mapper is of primary importance. I did see on
the wiki that relations are better with a maximum of 300 members ..
weather that is true or not I don't know. But it doe make sense that
with a lot of members the relation becomes harder to handle for both
maintenance and rendering.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
