Is there a metamodel behind this? Something that says (simplistic example) there are "objects" which have "properties" and "links to / relationships with other objects"? And how this might map to OSM entities and their tagging?
IMHO something like this as a "poster on the wall for every mapper" might help resolve many tagging disputes where there are conflicting paradigms leading to a shouting match whereby the one with the loudest voice wins that battle, but leaving the war going on... On 2015-09-10 09:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Am 10.09.2015 um 02:20 schrieb Warin <[email protected]>: >> >> Using that logic >> >> a parking area is a property of a parking aisle. >> >> a fuel station is a property of a driveway. >> >> and so on. > > doesn't seem logical to me, but if you see it like this you might want to > propose properties for these ways to add that information. > > Like > xy area object tags + > fenced=yes > > is an implicit fence (property) and > > barrier=fence is an explicit fence (object), and both are valid tags. > >> Bridges, tunnel and cuttings are physical objects that have their own >> properties (names, heights, widths, materials etc) >> that can be independent of whatever else they may be related to. > > yes, and to store these own properties in a common way you likely should map > these objects on their own. > > For a bridge the tag is > man_made=bridge > > if we don't have yet tags to map explicit tunnels and cuttings, these could > be introduced (maybe there aren't own properties on these objects that > mappers so far wanted to map, hence no tags have yet been introduced). > > cheers > Martin > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
