On 24 May 2010 11:33, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > > 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. >
+1 I think it is the way it should be. Geographical information should be separated from data whenever possible. I think Poland and Spain relations are interesting with the way they create a hierarchy of subarea but mixing information at the same level which is plainly wrong according to me. Separating the two layers would have avoid some problems. Emilie Laffray
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
