Am Dienstag 12 Oktober 2010, 23:11:35 schrieb Frank Steggink:
+1 for such a separation of responsibilities of nodes and point features.
IMO this would also be beneficial for line and polygon features.
Features should be cleanly separated from their geometries, which is not
currently the case.
Please don't make end users change too much on the next update!
I think the current data model is pretty OK, it is more a data data model than a sematical one. And
I think we should keep it like that ;)
Andi
Am 12.10.10 21:45, schrieb Chris Browet:
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-))
+1
This is the point
Am 12.10.10 22:33, schrieb Alan Millar:
Frankly, one of the main problems with the classic GIS
shapefile-style data paradigm is that it does not give you good
topological connectivity information, and therefore is inadequate for
OSM's multi-use data model.
If you think
Bugs API built-in, front page clean up, splitting the db across multiple
machines, matts space station worldwide triangle system of infinity... (ask
matt)
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 October 2010 05:49, SteveC
Fair point, but then I'm putting the C in RFC.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:49, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Seems like there are far more interesting things to do than that.
Most probably, but
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-)) if some have already given a
thought to the fact that nodes actually represent 2 different concepts in
the current api:
- a node in the geometrical sense, i.e. used to define a linestring/way
- a POI
Wouldn't keep the node element only for POI (i.e. with
Seems like there are far more interesting things to do than that.
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Chris Browet wrote:
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-)) if some have already given a
thought to the fact that nodes actually represent 2 different concepts in the
current api:
- a node in
On 13 October 2010 05:49, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Seems like there are far more interesting things to do than that.
I'm curious to know what exactly you had in mind...
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:49, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Seems like there are far more interesting things to do than that.
Most probably, but the point is not prioritization, it is RFC about the
idea.
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
On 12-10-2010 21:45, Chris Browet wrote:
Seems to me that it would:
- be less confusing, both for consumers and editors
Implementation details like this should be hidden from consumers by the
editors anyway.
- save db space
I'm wondering why you think it will save db space? Your idea
Hi,
Chris Browet wrote:
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-)) if some have already given a
thought to the fact that nodes actually represent 2 different concepts
Yes, this is something that has been discussed on and off for at least
two years. I know because we mentioned in the first
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-)) if some have already given a
thought to the fact that nodes actually represent 2 different concepts in
the current api:
- a node in the geometrical sense, i.e. used to define a
On 12/10/2010 20:45, Chris Browet wrote:
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-)) if some have already given
a thought to the fact that nodes actually represent 2 different
concepts in the current api:
- a node in the geometrical sense, i.e. used to define a linestring/way
- a POI
True, but
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-)) if some have already given a
thought to the fact that nodes actually represent 2 different concepts in
the current api:
- a node in the geometrical sense, i.e. used to define a linestring/way
- a POI
It is this way on purpose, because that is
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:19:15 +0200, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Hi,
Chris Browet wrote:
I am wondering (I wonder a lot lately ;-)) if some have already given a
thought to the fact that nodes actually represent 2 different concepts
Yes, this is something that has been
Of course the node element would have to be kept not only for POI nodes
but also for topology nodes (where two ways meet).
Indeed, I didn't thought about the connections.
The idea came from the observation that the 80/20 rule would probably apply
to ways only comprising empty nodes.
But
On 10-10-12 10:41 PM, Matthias Julius wrote
Maybe less ugly would be to have nodes just contain lat and lon and
introduce new point elements that need to reference a node.
That would also make it easier to put two different objects at the same
spot (like a mail box on a lamp post) as added
17 matches
Mail list logo
