Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-12 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, > The point is that for when part of a road belongs to a route, you'll > either need to: [...] Ah, now I understand. The main thing that was proposed is using relations for TAGS that are not valid for the whole length of a way. This would be modelled using a relation but that relation w

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-12 Thread Ben Laenen
On Monday 11 February 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > > If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll > > effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and > > relations (since things like route relations will again have these > > segment relations contained i

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to

2008-02-11 Thread David Ebling
> As far as I understand it, the idea is simply to > qualify a tag with > start and end node. I.e. you have a way that goes > from node A, B, C to > Z, but from B to D and from M to P it is a > pedestrian road. So, > > old scheme: > > split way into 5 parts (3 non-pedestrian, 2 > pedestrian) and

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-11 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, > If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll > effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and > relations (since things like route relations will again have these > segment relations contained in them), which will likely increase > complexity a lot i

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-11 Thread Ben Laenen
On Monday 11 February 2008, Karl Newman wrote: > That seems like a reasonable approach--see my reply to Bernd's email > in another forked thread. The way should be long, but not > unreasonably so, and if the name or highway type changes, that seems > like a logical place to split it. I thought wit

Re: [OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-11 Thread Karl Newman
On Feb 11, 2008 10:36 AM, Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman wrote: > > To me, the nodes and ways > > should follow the physical world as much as possible--the road didn't > change > > just because the speed limit changed, so why chop it up? > > I changed the subject now - a

[OSM-talk] relations in order not to fragment roads (was: correctly mapping avenues)

2008-02-11 Thread Martin Trautmann
Karl Newman wrote: > To me, the nodes and ways > should follow the physical world as much as possible--the road didn't change > just because the speed limit changed, so why chop it up? I changed the subject now - and I agree, roads should be kept as roads. The more details you add, the more fragm