[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu
Sun Apr 14 17:58:48 UTC 2013
Here is the first opnion in favor of using relations in this thread, let's
2013/4/12 LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com>
> 1) All situations complex and simple can be mapped in the same way - this
> makes my mapping easier.
That's the point which is highlighted by data quality and consistency
I would love this too but it's hard for me to make a choice between mappers
load of work and data consuming easing.
Those seem to be incompatible, don't you?
> 2) Single real object can have all the information on one place only, not
> on 50+ osm objects (eg. name of long streets).
Concerning power plants, type of primitive doesn't matter since all plant's
information is stored whether in a relation or in a closed area.
> 3) Higher level, more abstract features can be handled more easily.
That's a good point.
With relations, all power plants would be mapped the same way and consuming
rules would be simpler.
=> Mapping rules would implicitly be too : "Okay a power plant, let's use a
relation" instead of "Errr a power plant, is it closed or is it dispersed?"
But look above what Martin Vonwald thinks about data consuming :)
> 4) With appropriate editor (eg. JOSM with Relation Toolbox) it is no more
> difficult to learn than drawing a square.
> 10) Relations just make sense.
It makes relational sense, but not spatially sense, to be objective.
It would be great to find out what are the "state of the art" in OSM to
make a better choice than "heads or tails" : *what is used for airports,
train stations, factories,... ?*
If we can't do that, I'll make a choice which won't satisfy everyone here
and *the proposal may not be accepted* (which is not an option for me when
I look back to the amount of time I spent on it).
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging