[OSM-newbies] Fwd: Re: Re: Time to retire ref= on ways?

[Mike Harris]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Re: [OSM-newbies] Time to retire ref= on ways?
Date: 	Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:07:36 +0000
From: 	Mike Harris <mikh at delco.idps.co.uk>
To: 	newbies at openstreetmap.org
CC: 	Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>, talk-us at openstreetmap.org



I am very unsure about this proposal as it might cause me considerable 
problems - but I don't want to ignore the wisdom of others or the 
possible history of the issue as apparently this has been discussed before.

I can understand the desire to separate data relating to a route into a 
route relation and to leave the ref tag clean for describing the 
physical properties of a route. However, it is not always clear to me 
where the dividing line comes. I am also uncertain about the 
desirability of creating very large numbers of routes, most of which 
would be very short.

My thinking here is in the context of my main interest in OSM as a means 
of recording data on public rights of way in England and Wales. I 
realise that this is a regional issue - but it is very important in the 
region (as doubtless the Oregon / Washington issues are important in 
those states of the USA). There are many thousands of public rights of 
way (PROWs) in England and Wales - most of them individually only a few 
kilometres long - and quite often less than a kilometre. For reference 
purposes each PROW is given a reference number made up of the parish 
name and a numerical (or alphanumeric) identifier. My current practice 
is to use the usual highway fields to identify the type of way, its 
surface, its suitability / availability for different kinds of user, 
etc. I then add a tag designation= to describe its legal status and a 
tag ref= to record its unique identifier.

Few of these PROWs extend over more than one way - and at the most a 
very small number - so converting them to routes (quite apart from the 
labour involved) would generate many thousands of new routes, mostly 
with a single member each. I am not sure that this is sensible or 
productive.

Before condemning the proposal out of hand, I am seeking advice. But 
please bear in mind that current practice has evolved after a great deal 
of consultation, experimentation and optimisation. I am not against 
change per se - but it needs to be a productive change and I don't want 
to see some happy-go-lucky bot trashing years of work - that would take 
me straight to the OSM exit door :'( :'( .

On 19:59, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>
>    
>> fully agree we should keep this target in mind.
>> But first we have to resolve a long list of problems first.
>> there shouldn't be any time when the renderer or other data consumers will be left with completely broken data because step2 was done before step1
>> osm doesn't have any way of enforcing anything we need to be careful to kill the dinosaur too early
>>
>>
>> 1) route relation tagging has to be defined, agreed and accepted widely. currently it's a mess.
>> 2) rendering, garmin maps, any other major data consumer must be updated to use relations. currently none does to my knowledge. no wonder since 1) isn't done
>>      
> 1) appears to be done based on observations around the
> Oregon/Washington area (including relations that travel across other
> states).  Not sure what's holding up 2), since it's clearly not 1)
> at this point.
>
>    
>> 3) define a grace period after 1,2) is done and consider to delete them after that. No need to do it because any consumer understanding relations the right way will push down the relation ref and ignore the way ref.
>>      
> It's been at least a year.  How much more time do you need?  ;o)
>
>
>
>    

-- 
*Mike Harris*

-- 
*/Mike Harris/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20100308/31f291a4/attachment.html>