Am 28.06.2015 um 08:34 schrieb Jo: ... > > As far as the datatypes go, I would be all in favor for the area > datatype. I hear a lot of talk about it, and I don't understand why it > doesn't materialise. While we're at it, we should 'formalise' a few more > of the things we now use relations for. ...
Because it is not just a question of hand waving? On the one hand there's the task of finding a way of modelling areas that is net an improvement over what we have today. We have lots of proposals that improve certain aspects of our current model, but at the cost of worse behaviour for other aspects. I yet have to see a proposal that is convincing enough overall*. On the other hand, actually migrating to a new area type is going to be a major undertaking in itself and my gut feeling is that it will be the only dev thing we will be working on for at least a year once we start and there will be a lot of stuff that will never be migrated. And that all without actual gain in what we can model in OSM. Simon * note: for large areas I would consider Zveriks area references a good solution that would generalize and replace the current magic tags (coastline and others) and could be implemented without actually introducing an area type.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
