On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > there is a kind of informal guideline that states you shouldn't use > relations for things that can be expressed with a tag (e.g. relations like > all streets of type x in a country b should be omitted because you don't > gain anything more than is already in the db). Redundancy (like repeating > the name on the parts) is more stable than a relation (also because > relations are not handled very well by some editing programs, and the > concept seems more complex for new mappers than simple tags are). OSM is > likely not a "clean DB model" in your sense, at least it prefers redundancy > and transparency over complexity and formal simplicity. > > Cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > I think the name tag should stay on the street way(s) but you can still use a relation to group all the pieces of street, sidewalk, etc. together. The street or associatedStreet relations could be used for this purpose. The associatedStreet relation was only intended for linking buildings to roads for addressing purposes but the street relation is for linking anything to a road. Both have been used with a role of "sidewalk" although this is (currently) undocumented. The relations would be a convenient aid for data consumers to tie things together. If relations are as unstable as you think then it still won't matter because the absence of a relation, or a partial relation, doesn't say anything. It's only the presence of a relation which adds meaning. - Peter
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
