Dear all, > Hugh Barnes wrote: > > I had a very different different idea of what relations were before I > > looked at them properly. I was disappointed to see that they just appear > > to be named groupings. … > > They are what you make them to be.
I think, relations are exactly *not* that way. Of course, there is no formal prohibition or technical constraint. But the purpose of any data including relations is to be understood by another algorithm. So a type of relation becomes useful if a lot of mappers use it with the same syntax and semantics. Thus, maintaining relations coherent by e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations sounds like a good idea, and maybe its also a good idea to donate some life the discussion process there. Thus, also people not reading this list can participate. Note that the relations in the database currently only rarely obey the consensus on the wiki page, but this might change as with the proposed features page. Cheers, Roland _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
