On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> sure, editor support isn't 100% yet, but why re-create a poor-man's >> relations with name-based references, when we already have "proper" >> relations? > > Because editor support is almost non-existent, and exceptionally confusing :-)
so lets fix the real problem! i'm sure everyone would like better relation support in all editors :-) > The advantage of using addr:street is that it does just work. except when it doesn't - e.g: misspelled streets, deleted "in use" streets, etc... > The only > problem being that JOSM isn't clever enough at the moment to > autocomplete the field based on existing streets in the area. It > actually should be a drop down combo box letting you select the > relevant street. And it's entirely possible to cleverly rename local > objects' addr:street when the street name changes. Of course once > you've gone to all that trouble you might as well have made the > backend use a relation instead. exactly! so why construct such a relation internally, where only JOSM can use it? > I like the clean relation data model, but find the addr:street thing > much easier at the moment. it is much easier at the moment, and supported by OSM inspector, etc... which makes relatedStreet a hard sell, but i think it really is the best way to do it. addr:street=Foo on an addressable element is basically the same thing as route=LCN:4 on a way. and i thought it was well understood why using this method for routes is A Bad Idea, even if it is easier. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
