On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/8/31 Roy Wallace <[email protected]>: > > That sounds more or less what I had in mind, yes, except the example > osm file used relations acting as children of the way almost, why > can't ways simply have children of their own instead of using > relations? I understand why you feel that using a way+node relation or way+direction tag may be a hack, but "children" are also a hack. Children not only only a single problem (that of a way being asked to take on additional metadata that really belongs to only a portion of the way) but solves it by poorly duplicating relations! Relations are capable of modeling the same parent-child relationship you desire and exist precicely to relate many pieces into a whole. I'm not saying that the "lane and lane group" proposal is perfect either. In my opinion it abuses relations so as not to upset the status quo too much. Personally I think http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways does a much better job of using relations correctly. Multiple sub-ways are related to each other, with the relation holding the generic tags and sub-ways containing any overriding information. If renderers supported it, it'd be the ideal way of representing "child" ways. Somewhat tangentally, while finding the Collected Ways proposal I stumbled across the "enforcement" relation. It's an "approved" use of relations and acts almost identically to the stop relation proposal. Though this doesn't mean it's not a hack, it does indicate that the community seems to be ok with using relations in the way proposed.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
