Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)
On Monday 11 February 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and relations (since things like route relations will again have these segment relations contained in them), which will likely increase complexity a lot in my eyes. Has anyone actually proposed such a thing? That would indeed be unnecessarily complex. The point is that for when part of a road belongs to a route, you'll either need to: * split the ways at the start and end point of that route for the road and at the ways in between to the relation * or we'll have to make a new segment relation with that part, and add that one to the route relation. So that's what I mean with the extra layer of segment relations. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)
Hi, If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and relations (since things like route relations will again have these segment relations contained in them), which will likely increase complexity a lot in my eyes. Has anyone actually proposed such a thing? That would indeed be unnecessarily complex. As far as I understand it, the idea is simply to qualify a tag with start and end node. I.e. you have a way that goes from node A, B, C to Z, but from B to D and from M to P it is a pedestrian road. So, old scheme: split way into 5 parts (3 non-pedestrian, 2 pedestrian) and tag accordingly. scheme with superway relation: split way into 5 parts and create one relation to contain them all; add all common tags to relation; add pedestrian tag to 2 ways. scheme with qualified tag relations: do not split way. create two relations that each contain the way, plus the start and end node (B/D for relation 1 and M/P for relation 2), plus the special tag (pedestrian). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)
On Monday 11 February 2008, Karl Newman wrote: That seems like a reasonable approach--see my reply to Bernd's email in another forked thread. The way should be long, but not unreasonably so, and if the name or highway type changes, that seems like a logical place to split it. I thought with the addition of relations we would go towards moving all information up from ways to segments. So instead of putting for example the street name in the way, put it in a relation (and that would immediately solve things like dual carriage ways or cul-de-sacs with the same street name, which need different ways anyway). If a road has a reference number, put it also in a relation together with all other roads with that reference, etc. So, in my eyes it would be something like splitting ways up at all junctions (to my knowledge that also simplifies things for route planners), or on metadata changes like speed, and move info up if more than one way belongs to the same property. If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and relations (since things like route relations will again have these segment relations contained in them), which will likely increase complexity a lot in my eyes. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)
On Feb 11, 2008 10:36 AM, Martin Trautmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karl Newman wrote: To me, the nodes and ways should follow the physical world as much as possible--the road didn't change just because the speed limit changed, so why chop it up? I changed the subject now - and I agree, roads should be kept as roads. The more details you add, the more fragments you would get. When a proprety of the road at its full length does change, you have to adjust every single piece. There are occasions where a certain split has to be done. Take e.g. a national route which passes several cities. It could be called e.g. B3 (which would be the German Bundesstraße 3) which is several hundred kilometers long and passes through dozens of towns and villages. Whenever the town boarder is reached, the B3 may follow a line of residential roads. I feel that a split is required here - the full length of the road can be found by the ref tag. That seems like a reasonable approach--see my reply to Bernd's email in another forked thread. The way should be long, but not unreasonably so, and if the name or highway type changes, that seems like a logical place to split it. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
