[Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet
Hi there, the relation type page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into associatedStreet relations? Often there could be merge several relatedStreet relations together to one associatedStreet relations, as relatedStreets sometime only connected single houses to a street. Here is my current statistic of street-like relations: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet_street.html Kind Regards Werner (werner2101) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: Hi there, Hello, the relation type page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into associatedStreet relations? Often there could be merge several relatedStreet relations together to one associatedStreet relations, as relatedStreets sometime only connected single houses to a street. I'm one of those pushing for type=street, and I'd be glad if we could merge all somethingStreet to it :) (which is less error-prone, less chars to type, easier to remember) (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be route=road) Here is my current statistic of street-like relations: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet_street.html Oh, nice. There you can already see that street is already at second place just behind associatedStreet. In Italy it's already superior to it :) (1010 vs. 625 [0]) [0]: http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/keys/type#values Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: the relation type page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into associatedStreet relations? Often there could be merge several relatedStreet relations together to one associatedStreet relations, as relatedStreets sometime only connected single houses to a street. I'm one of those pushing for type=street, and I'd be glad if we could merge all somethingStreet to it :) (which is less error-prone, less chars to type, easier to remember) Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should try to reduce the different types one by one. (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be route=road) AFAIK type=route + route=road is different to the street relations. road routes: primary, secondary road routes with the same ref. street: houses and highway elements with the same name/address. Here is my current statistic of street-like relations: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet_street.html Oh, nice. Here you can find other listings: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/index.html e.g. the list for italy: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/it.html Regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: the relation type page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into associatedStreet relations? Often there could be merge several relatedStreet relations together to one associatedStreet relations, as relatedStreets sometime only connected single houses to a street. I'm one of those pushing for type=street, and I'd be glad if we could merge all somethingStreet to it :) (which is less error-prone, less chars to type, easier to remember) Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should try to reduce the different types one by one. Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly to street :P (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be route=road) AFAIK type=route + route=road is different to the street relations. road routes: primary, secondary road routes with the same ref. street: houses and highway elements with the same name/address. That's exactly what I'm saying, see below. From your originally linked page, I can see there are some route=street around. I was saying that these should be merged too. My reference to route=road was that, if a route=street has a ref=, this should really be a route=road. So there shouldn't be *any* route=street around. Regarding route=road, here is one more thought. In some cases, people (I, for one, in my beginnings) use route=road to link different pieces of a ref-less street: this is wrong. But surely this can't be done automatically :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:07:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote: (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be route=road) Oh, and I see also type=address... meh :) Seems like we'll need some time to do all this properly :) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:12 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should try to reduce the different types one by one. Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly to street :P (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be route=road) AFAIK type=route + route=road is different to the street relations. road routes: primary, secondary road routes with the same ref. street: houses and highway elements with the same name/address. That's exactly what I'm saying, see below. From your originally linked page, I can see there are some route=street around. I was saying that these should be merged too. My reference to route=road was that, if a route=street has a ref=, this should really be a route=road. So there shouldn't be *any* route=street around. Yes. But you have to look inside all route=street relations to make a judge wether it should be a road=route or a street (or associatedStreet). Regarding route=road, here is one more thought. In some cases, people (I, for one, in my beginnings) use route=road to link different pieces of a ref-less street: this is wrong. But surely this can't be done automatically :) Cleanup is hard and timeconsuming work ;-) Regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
