[Tagging] Converting relation type "relatedStreet" to "assiciatedStreet"

Werner Hoch werner.ho at gmx.de
Sun Feb 19 11:42:08 GMT 2012


Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:12 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> > Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should
> > try to reduce the different types one by one.
> 
> Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly to street :P
>
> > > (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route +
> > > route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be
> > > route=road)
> > 
> > AFAIK type=route + route=road  is different to the street relations.
> > road routes: primary, secondary road routes with the same ref.
> > street: houses and highway elements with the same name/address.
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying, see below.
> From your originally linked page, I can see there are some route=street around.
> I was saying that these should be merged too. My reference to route=road was
> that, if a route=street has a ref=, this should really be a route=road. So
> there shouldn't be *any* route=street around.

Yes. But you have to look inside all route=street relations to make a
judge wether it should be a road=route or a street (or
associatedStreet).


> Regarding route=road, here is one more thought. In some cases, people (I, for
> one, in my beginnings) use route=road to link different pieces of a ref-less
> street: this is wrong. But surely this can't be done automatically :)

Cleanup is hard and timeconsuming work ;-)

Regards
Werner




More information about the Tagging mailing list