<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">my quick thoughts...<br>
<br>
names can be duplicated, so removing the years is just fine.
start_date and<br>
end_date need to be set. in Ghost Tracks, i have code in my
javascript display<br>
widget that adds the years to the name for display purposes; if i
put on my<br>
RDBMS hat, duplication of data is bad so including years in the
name when<br>
they are already in start_date and end_date must be bad too.<br>
<br>
consider using relations to combine related objects; it's also ok
to use super<br>
relations to contain groups of relations that belong together. and
feel free<br>
to think about tagging beyond what is in the OSM wiki. OHM is
going to need<br>
tagging beyond OSM tagging for a lot of the temporal concepts, and
right<br>
now, when OHM is still small, is the to experiment.<br>
<br>
so if you create a relation for a parish at a point in time, you
can then<br>
create a super relation to contain all variants of that parish.
OSM does<br>
something similar with the Interstate and US highway systems in
the<br>
US; the relations are generally broken at the state boundaries and<br>
there is a superrelation for each numbered route containing all
the<br>
state-by-state relations. what i'm suggesting is simply a vertical<br>
grouping through time rather than a lateral grouping in space.<br>
<br>
On 4/29/15 5:05 AM, SK53 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAELijW999qAnN6ySg31ixboCmePHs89N70kgHptZt-bX=JnM6g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>H Mattias,<br>
<br>
</div>
Just as OSM has no notion of a named road (it can be lots
of linear pieces) and the named road is deduced by
proximity, so in OHM we have no notion of a single object
changing through time, instead such links need to be done
by both geographical and chronological proximity.<br>
<br>
</div>
Te reason for this is fairly straightforward. In a full
relational model the pieces of a road would be in a 1:m
relationship with the road object. Similarly in a temporal
relational database for a boundary there would be many
entries each with a distinct non-overlapping time range.
This type of direct relationship is not possible with tags,
although you could use relations. <br>
<br>
</div>
What we do not know is how easy it is to pull boundaries for
different time periods together.<br>
<br>
</div>
Jerry<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 29 April 2015 at 05:20, H MK <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sockenkartor@gmail.com" target="_blank">sockenkartor@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Hello everybody!<br>
<br>
</div>
In the Stockholm area there are now boundaries for
many ecclesiastical parishes. In the city of
Stockholm, the census districts for the time they
existed (1877–1926) should be done, even if they need
a lot of fact checking.<br>
<br>
</div>
In order to separate different areas of the same entity,
I have named both the parishes and the census district
with the years they had that territorial extension. This
is not satisfactory. Reasonably, a parish is the same
object after a minor territorial change. As it is now,
they become a new object whenever there is a change. Or,
is it ok to have several objects with the same name? I
would like to strip the years from names.<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rwelty@averillpark.net">rwelty@averillpark.net</a>
Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
Java - Web Applications - Search</pre>
</body>
</html>