I recently found out about the Extremely long Amtrak route relations from clay_c.
Your message is a bit confusing at first but I think you are proposing that relations and super-relations should be used more-often to reduce the complexity of processing data for data consumers? In that case, I would support an API limit on the number of members in a relation. I agree that developers shouldn't have to handle this burden. In response to DaveF's comment: > Actually, splitting way because software can't handle it, is making the > database more complex. Yes, but benefits outweigh the costs. If the editors did this automatically and still made the data interpretable, this wouldn't be an issue. Sorry if I misinterpreted the conversation. On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 5:29 AM Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > [cross-posted to talk-us@ and tagging@, please choose your follow-ups > wisely] > > Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > It seems that we are increasingly doing things to simplify the > > model because certain tooling can't handle the real level of > > complexity that exists in the real world. I'm in favor of fixing > > the tooling rather than neutering the data. > > I sincerely hope "I'm in favor of fixing" translates as "I'm planning to > fix", though I fear I may be disappointed. > > More broadly, we need to nip this "oh just fix the tools" stuff in the > bud. > > OSM optimises for the mapper, because mappers are our most valuable > resource. That's how it's always been and that's how it should be. > > But that does not mean that volunteer tool authors should rewrite their > tools to cope with the 0.1% case; nor that it is reasonable for mappers to > make stuff ever more complex and expect developers to automatically fall in > line; nor that any given map has a obligation to render this 0.1%, or > indeed, anything that the map's creator doesn't want to render. > > The Tongass National Forest is not "in the real world", it is an > artificial administrative construct drawn up on some bureaucrat's desk. > It's not an actual forest where the boundaries represent a single > contiguous mass of trees. Nothing is lost or "neutered" by mapping it as > several relations (with a super-relation for completeness if you insist), > just as nothing is lost by tagging Chesapeake Bay with the series of > letters "c","o","a","s","t","l","i","n" and "e". > > Richard > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Thanks, Seth
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging