<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I am still reading some old mailing list posts ...<br>
<br>
What about a relation
with type="data", which is a relation that can include tags and other
relations recusively?<br>
<br>
This relation has no geometric reference but it
is just there to save data. So we could reuse relations for a purpose
which is not the main OSM one - instead of expensively defining a new
data type. This type could be used to save tag definitions (
<meta charset="utf-8">
<a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Machine-readable_Map_Feature_list">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Machine-readable_Map_Feature_list</a>
) regularly in the database to be able to access the data with
the API easily, which already provides versioning and changesets:<br>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<pre
style="border: 1px dashed rgb(47, 111, 171); padding: 1em; color: black; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249); line-height: 1.1em;"><relation id="...">
<tag k="type" v="data" />
<tag k="class" v="tag-def" />
<tag k="key" v="name" />
<tag k="onway" v="true" />
<tag k="description:de" v="..." />
<tag k="display-name:de" v="..." />
<member type="relation" id="..." role="implies" />
...
</relation></pre>
</span></span>Having a client-side framework with UI to access and
change the data according to the model - a pendant to JOSM - makes
sense.<br>
<br>
I want to add this idea to proposed uses of relations in the wiki.<br>
<br>
Andi<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 19.02.09 23:35, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
<blockquote cite="mid:499DDE9F.3070406@remote.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Steve Hill wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I've been thinking about ways to improve the way objects are tagged in OSM
- for a long time I've seen some problems with the way we currently tag
things, and I finally got around to writing down some of my thoughts on
the subject.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I *had* been wondering; we had the usual recurring left-right tagging
discussion but the bi-monthly Absolutely New And Improved Tagging Scheme
was overdue for a while. Thanks for jumping in and helping us out ;-)
Your concept is utterly unworkable of course with the current software
landscape, but if we leave that aside for a moment, then you do have an
interesting point, in fact one that was raised by Jochen and myself in
our April 2007 data model paper[1], back when we were still young and
believed we could change the world.
Quoting from that paper:
"Instead of having a geometric object with some properties, we instead
think of objects with some properties (like “this is a museum” and “this
has the name Natural History Museum”) and the added property of “this
object is positioned at such and such a location”. ... So the geometry
is not the object itself, as it is now, but it is just one property of
some kind of abstract object."
I believe this is indeed the way many pros are doing it - there is an
object and the geometry is one of many properties of the object. It is a
concept to keep in mind for the more distant future; I don't think we
should aim to do it with the current implementation of relations though.
Bye
Frederik
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/towards-a-new-data-model-for-osm.pdf">http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/towards-a-new-data-model-for-osm.pdf</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>