[Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Fri Dec 7 15:08:18 GMT 2012

Dave Sutter <sutter at intransix.com> writes:

> This may be a radical suggestion for OSM but I think POIs should be
> removed from the map database and put in an external database. Each
> POI should have an address and the address is used to match the POI to
> the map.
> This can also be extended to ref tags, which are a generalized
> address, to add additional data to the map, such as informtion like
> ferry schedules.

This seems like a debate about denormalized vs normal form in databases.
Rather than looking at it that way, I think the questions are:

  1) How do the various schemes affect our ability to use the

  2) How do the various schemes affect the community's ability to edit
  the data.

I think separate db vs in main db doesn't matter much for 1.  The
processing tools are high-leverage and written by small numbers of
people.  I don't think we are having a problem now.

For 2, I add POIs with an editor, just like drawing everything else.  So
I think having a separate database would be a hindrance if the UI
exposed it.  If the UI doesn't expose it, it probably doesn't matter,
but it seems like a lot of work, and I don't understand the gain.

> This may sound radical, but this is the way it is done almost everywhere else.

If separate groups maintained the map and the POI list, it probably
would make sense.  Does that describe 'everywhere else'?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20121207/d0bb8253/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Tagging mailing list