When it says "One or more via node or ways, which represent the junction." for the via role, is that one via node or one or more via ways? (i.e., can there be two or more nodes with the via role in the relation). -Vorpalblade77-kaart (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- No. There can be one via node, which works for most simple junctions, or any number of via ways, which can be useful for intersections involving dual carriageways or other uncommon situations. The current wording for this is a bit unclear though, so I'll try to find something better. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
via nodes or ways
I think the sentence "Via members should be nodes when possible, but in some cases, a way is needed." conflicts with the sentence "One via node or one or more via ways, which represent the junction."
- Sort of. I really just wanted to make clear that it's better to use nodes than ways, because they are more maintainable, but that it's ok to use ways if nodes won't suffice. Basically, both are ok to use, but if you come across a situation that could be modeled with either, use a node. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe replace "Via members should be nodes when possible, but in some cases, a way is needed." by "If the from way and the to way are connected, use the shared node as via member, else use one or more via ways which connect them." There is no example that shows a via way, so it's really difficult to understand when this is needed.