Hi, Peter Miller wrote: > There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should produced > one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of England' and > add the appropriate relations to them.
Generally, relations that just serve the purpose of collecting things are frowned upon. Relations are not meant to be a substitute for categories. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories For example, you would not do a relation "buildings by Norman Foster" because that can be simply done by adding a tag "architect=Norman Foster" to the buildings. If "Regions of England" is exactly a collection of relations with a certain admin level and location, then it carries no extra information and should not be created. (Rule of thumb: If you feel the desire to run a script that would automatically add and remove things to/from a relation based on their location and tagging then your relation is probably a collection relation that does not add value.) Having said that, it's all evolution, and if people really feel there are advantages to using relations as collections then there's probably nothing I can do against that ;-) > Here is the 'London Boroughs' relation as an example. I like the map > that is produced from it. Yes, I have the impression that people often do collection relations because they enjoy being able to simply request a relation/full OSM document from the API and retrieve all the objects, rather than having to find a working XAPI server and formulate a query. However this is *really* something that should be done at search time and not in the database - if we had grouping relations for everything that someone possibly wants so search for... hm, ok, the "slippery slope" argument doesn't help. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
