Dave Stubbs wrote: >Sent: 04 July 2008 9:14 AM >To: m*sh >Cc: dev@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] [OSM-talk] When mental models go wrong: >OpenStreetMap > >On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 7:20 AM, m*sh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Lauri Hahne wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> 1. Ways >>> >>> - There are one kind of ways in the database. Ways can have attributes >>> (tags) but aren't required. >>> - The tagging scheme suggest there are many kinds of ways (highway, >>> cycleway, aeroway...) >>> - Potlatch and JOSM's preset (and mappaint?) system allow you to pick >>> a type for way. >>> - We have questions such as "how can I turn this way into a bridge" or >>> "how can I create a "bridge-way" at #osm once in a while. >>> >> [...] >> >> Ways are IMHO somewhat mis-designed; at that point I agree with you. >> i must admit that I have not too much of a deep insight into some parts >> of the data model - due to being involved since just 4 weeks now. >> >> Moreover, IMHO ways are completely obsolete. Every kind of attribute you >> need can be represented within a node. And it can be represented >> _easier_ by just attributing the nodes. >> Think of the third world, where roads are often not covered with tarmac >> - - the surface changes every now and then. With OSM you have to split it >> up in several ways, each attributed accordingly. >> >> All you would need is an item or *tag* k='connect' v='<node_id>' >> So you could connect nodes to a way, and you could easily turn two nodes >> within a road into a bridge if it has not been set appropriately before. >> >> Any renderer has to use the nodes anyway to make up a "way" so it has to >> look at the nodes - WHY look at and interpret the ways additionally? >> >> Admittedly any software would need a fix on that. But the major part >> (dropping the ways and setting the connections) should be a matter of a >> simple script. >> >> Just my 2 cents on your thoughts > > >Relational integrity, tag ambivalent database implementation, and a >vague chance of keeping history sane, plus just a little abstraction >to stop us all going completely insane? > >But kudos to you, most people try to normalise the data model onto >relations, but normalising to nodes is thinking outside the box. Of >course it's basically a tag version of segments which were ditched due >to the extra processing requirements, and the annoying unordered ways >thing. And also I think you have a problem where a node is shared by >multiple "ways".. ie: where do I put my bridge tags? > >Anyway... redesigning the raw data model is more than likely a >complete waste of everyone's time. > >Dave
Nicely put Dave, Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
