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
