On Feb 11, 2008 7:20 AM, Bernd Raichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > on Sunday, 10 February 2008 08:34:31 -0800, > Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Since trees lining a way/street are such a common occurence, why > > > > not have a simple additional tag to the main road. > > > > > > > > lined_by_trees=yes/no/left/right > > > > > > I'm a bit unhappy about needlessly inflating the importance of the > > > direction of ways. Long-term, I would actually like to get rid of the > > > direction and express everything in relations. > > This means, that you find it necessary to have something like a > "direction" or a "side", both of this features related to a way? > But you don't want to express a direction or a side by the _implicit > order_ of the way nodes. > > > > > The reasons for this > > > are > > > > > > (a) the direction is too easily changed, sometimes by mistake > > ... because none of the current OSM editors show direction- or > side-related tags explicitly. > > > > > (b) there might be multiple conflicting things that rely on the > > > direction, e.g. a road that is oneway from A to B but has a > > > slope from B to A > > > > > > Anything with "left/right" in it also relies on direction. I'd prefer > > > "east/west/north/south", or using an explicit relation that says > > > "trees on the right between nodes A and B along road C". > > I am against east/west/north/south because there are a lot of > ways/areas/things which do not go straight ahead. > > > > Okay, this thread is at risk of spinning wildly off-topic, but I've > been > > thinking about this situation recently. It seems to clamor for the use > of > > specialized relations that are "direction-aware". That way, if a way is > a > > member of a relation and has directional properties (left/right), then > the > > editors could look for those relations when the way is reversed and > either > > fix them automatically or at the minimum raise a warning dialog. > > > > I also had some other ideas about enforcing referential integrity for > > another type of specialized relation (if one or more node relation > members > > is required to be part of a way relation member, then enforce that > rule). > > That rule could actually be enforced by the API. > > > > These specialized relations would just give some structure to the > wide-open > > relation type, without implying anything about the nature of the > relation. > > It could possibly be accomplished through special tags on the existing > > relation structure. > > Do you have any propositions how this will look like or how this > should be done? > > A few days ago I have started a new proposal for a "Segmented Tag", > which relates a set of tags to a directed or undirected part of a way > (I have called this part "segment" inspired by GDF's "Segmented > Attributes"). I have not found the time yet to finalize the proposal > adding some examples, nonetheless it can already be found in the OSM > Wiki (Relations/Proposed/Segmented Tags). > > > Best wishes, > -bernd >
Big +1 on this proposal. That's exactly what I've been thinking about lately. It's stupid to chop up nice long ways just because the speed limit changes or the way happens to cross a bridge. Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
