-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Karl Newman wrote: | On Feb 11, 2008 7:20 AM, Bernd Raichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: | | Hi, | | | on Sunday, 10 February 2008 08:34:31 -0800, | Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> | writes: | > On Feb 10, 2008 4:21 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mailto:[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.
I think the opposite - we should move nearly all tags from ways into relations so that we can chop the ways more - probably at every junction - - without causing duplication. Robert (Jamie) Munro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHtNn2z+aYVHdncI0RAhBRAJ9XK0il1W4tAiAumfcKqWDqY/NR2ACg3eGx nHl5J7hXD+iNpOOSyKADb+4= =58IA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
