On 02/05/2011 09:14 AM, Craig Hinners wrote: > Sure, relations get you an additional degree of normalization. And using > relations to carry route/network tags gets the job done, granted. But at > what cost? > > I've yet to hear a convincing argument that justifies the additional > complexity of relations as they are being championed as carriers of > route/network tags, nor have I heard why applying tags with > highly-specific keys directly to ways is so fundamentally flawed that it > warrants the added complexity of relations.
What's complex about relations? > As if to prove my point, the whole reason this thread even exists (if my > understanding is correct) is that those who are trying to import data > from other GIS formats (Shapefiles) are being stymied by the fact that > the tags-to-relations-to-ways model turns a non-trivial task into a head > scratcher. Sounds like a toolchain problem. Maybe the tools need to be fixed. > And, unlike the current situation of keys-that-aren't-really-keys, > _cycleway:oregon_ represents one concept, and one concept only: > cycleways in Oregon. Where is that key even being used? Cycleway relations have been around for a LONG time now, to the degree that there's even a renderer that specializes in highlighting exactly these.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
