Hi Jukka, Thank you again for the explanation and information about GDAL history!!
> If I understand right you consider that instead of having now in the > multipolygon layer relation_id as osm_id and way_id as osm_way_id it would be > better to have way_id as osm_id and relation_id as osm_relation_id. Perhaps > yes, but for my mind the difference is not huge. Yes. > I guess that when the developer of the OSM driver stopped using the > “polygons” layer they made the driver to write also the way polygons into the > existing “multipolygons” layer. That layer already had osm_id so a new field > osm_way_id was simply added into that layer. That perfectly explains my question!! > If you can prove that there are some general use cases where renaming the id > fields of the multipolygons layer would be a big improvement, please file a > feature request. I do not have any big or moderate improvement in mind. Your explanation on OSM driver history cleared why is that so. Thank you once again Jukka. I owe you at least a beer for the help you provided for the last couple of weeks!
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
