On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the only thing that connects two objects is that they have a common > property, I'd say a relation is not the way to model that.
i think you're right. mathematically speaking, set membership by shared properties and explicit references are identical, but that doesn't mean that we should treat them as interchangeable :-) > That being said, I'd say there is merit in connecting all the ways that > form a trans-country motorway into one relation, and what with our > split-way-mania that may easily amount to a few thousand pieces... do you think it is correct to say that relations should be used to indicate definite memberships, rather than indefinite memberships? For example, "these ways are part of a *this* motorway" rather than "these ways part of *a* motorways". it also seems to me that (generally) relationships should indicate locality, as this is more meaningful in the context of bounding box / map calls. i.e: when i resolve all members of an ldp / route / turn restriction, those members (if they are complete) should be connected. likewise, if i resolve members of an addr:associatedStreet, i would expect the houses to be quite close to the street. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
