Hi, > It seems to me that it might be much better to start having the concept > of multiple layers in the OSM DB.
I've been talking about this only recently when a guy asked for a "play area": I said that in the long run we'll have to have different layers anyway, and then we might also have a play layer. I think layers will also be interesting when it comes to model stuff like some ancient Roman buildings or other historic data which would greatly complicate editing of the "current" data if it would get in the way all the time. Of course, millions of open questions remain, e.g. will there be features that can transcend layers, or links between them (e.g. feature X on layer A is the same as feature Y on layer B or so). > Clearly, this would require a tweak or two to the DB (a "layer" value > for each object), Not necessarily - one could also set up different layers on their very own infrastructure which may not even have to be in the same country as the original OSM server. Why stuff more and more through that single bottleneck when there's a good opportunity for scaling here? Even your idea of "merging" is perhaps not so important; if we had good layer support across the toolchain, we would not even have to merge everything into one "main" layer. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
