[OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport lines (not having to add the same group to multiple route relations). The proposal is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation Please discuss or comment, preferably on the wiki discussion page. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. Put a tag on the elements saying this is part of Group X. Wait for data users to work out a way to grab groups of elements based on that tag ( maybe help code that sort of functionality yourself). Richard On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM, LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com wrote: I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport lines (not having to add the same group to multiple route relations). The proposal is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation Please discuss or comment, preferably on the wiki discussion page. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
Hi. I think, the name of the relation is far from optimal, but the basic idea is not the worst, and we already use a similar approach in nested Multipolygon-relations. But: 1) type=group is far too unspecific and misleading, as it's NOT intended to group similar items together (like a category), but to form abstract, unnamed, but common objects to be reused. This is in general the same as forming one outer-area in a multipolygon relation out of several non-closed ways. 2) For the Public transport example I see a major drawback for stops. A common road with several (bus) stops may be shared by different busses, but some the busses may omit different stops where they don't stop. This would require again either to split the common part to several ones (not much better than using the ways directly now), or to use different relations/to use the relation only for some of the routes sharing the same way. But then it does not get that much easier than it is now. 3) Lacking tool support (that's not a good argument, but nevertheless I fear, these relations will for quite a while break most tools and maps using Public transport information, one of the IMHO best showcases of OSM. regards Peter Am 22.03.2012 13:13, schrieb Richard Mann: Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. Put a tag on the elements saying this is part of Group X. Wait for data users to work out a way to grab groups of elements based on that tag ( maybe help code that sort of functionality yourself). Richard On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM, LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com mailto:flukas.robot%2b...@gmail.com wrote: I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport lines (not having to add the same group to multiple route relations). The proposal is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation Please discuss or comment, preferably on the wiki discussion page. Lukás( Mate(jka (LM_1) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
On Mar 22, 2012 5:14 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. I agree, this has the real potential to overcomplicate editing routes in places where which in a large multitude of routes changes relatively regularly over time. TriMet's MAX system, the Portland bus mall, NYC Subway and other big-city systems with even minimal buildup come to mind. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
On Thursday 22 March 2012, LM_1 wrote: I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport lines (not having to add the same group to multiple route relations). The proposal is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation IMO this would make life significantly more painful for data consumers. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
On 3/22/2012 2:27 PM, Robert Scott wrote: On Thursday 22 March 2012, LM_1 wrote: I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport lines (not having to add the same group to multiple route relations). The proposal is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation IMO this would make life significantly more painful for data consumers. +1 or 1,000 from me! Especially as more developers move to being data/API consumers rather than tile server retrieve-and-display. Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal
On Mar 22, 2012 7:32 AM, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Johnson wrote: On Mar 22, 2012 5:14 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. I agree, this has the real potential to overcomplicate editing routes in places where which in a large multitude of routes changes relatively regularly over time. TriMet's MAX system, the Portland bus mall, NYC Subway and other big-city systems with even minimal buildup come to mind. So, you don't use it for these routes. Could you explain better how this proposal complicates the cases you've mentioned? Multiplexed routes don't have the same endpoints all the way through. You would have to have multiple group relations to handle it. In the end, this makes it more complex than just mapping each line individually, as is the current method. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
