[OSM-dev] Using relations to save data
andreaskalsch at gmx.de
Tue May 4 21:12:02 BST 2010
I am still reading some old mailing list posts ...
What about a relation with type="data", which is a relation that can
include tags and other relations recusively?
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 (
regularly in the database to be able to access the data with the API
easily, which already provides versioning and changesets:
<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" />
Having a client-side framework with UI to access and change the data
according to the model - a pendant to JOSM - makes sense.
I want to add this idea to proposed uses of relations in the wiki.
Am 19.02.09 23:35, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Steve Hill wrote:
>> 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.
> 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, 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dev