Hi, Vincent Pottier wrote: > I know it is a risk of infinite loop for bad tools but > - the first version of the relation "definition" had no member, that is > not very convienient > - for tools keeping a list of definition, it is a way to remember to > witch area they apply > - maybe it is a way to build a "standard" def that several areas could > subscribe (for example holidays period zones of French educational > Academies that would apply to several departments)
My personal favourite would be to separate the concept of a country from its geographic (and some other) properties. Currently people will create a relation named "France" which has all the border lines, or border sub-relations, as members, and tags like name:de=Frankreich and all that. But I'm tempted to throw in another level: Have one relation that represents the country of France. Here you can enter all the names and link to the Wikipedia article for France and so on. Something that represents the city of Paris - whether that's a simple node or maybe a relation too - cold be a member of the France relation with the role "capital". Then have another relation that models the borders of France, and make this a member of the France relation (role="borders" or so). Your relation, which has lots of routing/navigation parameters for France, could also be a member of that same France relation (role="highway_code" or something). And so on. Relations galore! I know some people across the channel will grumble but they'll get used to relations some time too. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk