[OSM-talk] Missing structure
siliconfiend at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 17:53:34 GMT 2008
On Jan 18, 2008 9:01 AM, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 2008 3:42 PM, Karl Newman <siliconfiend at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't have any particular objections against your proposal (although
> it is
> >> somewhat complex), but I still think geographic boundaries are the way
> >> go. Which do you think will happen first: Creation of boundaries and a
> >> to quickly query a point against them (or rather the reverse: given a
> >> return the boundaries), or tagging of nearly every object in the
> >> with an is_in tag?
> > FWIW, with the coastline checker being basically done, I'm considering
> > applying the same process to boundaries, a boundary checker. As a
> > side-effect it will produce a shapefile of all the boundaries, which
> > can be efficiently queried for is_in-ness...
> The problem will be checking every boundary found near the object being
> inspected, which requires all of those boundaries to be complete and
> Working against an is_in key eliminates all of that processing when trying
> find things and will work for boundaries for which the boundary data is
> incomplete. At some point in the future the is_in keys could be
> build or corrected when a boundary is edited. However the automatic
> would not be able to easily stablish that a particular boundary is within
> larger on, at which point the is_in flag for the higher levels become even
> more important?
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
But Martijn's coastline checker is perfectly suited for checking the
completeness of the boundaries. I still maintain that getting correct
boundaries and a method to query them are going to be the most expedient
path compared to tagging every object inside the boundaries (which would be
a maintenance nightmare anyway).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk