[Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Jo]

Again, you are obviously not talking about the same thing.


2014-07-16 16:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:

> I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation.  Just
> spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an
> additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per city, and
> at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that
> can't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each
> member relation.  And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of
> thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks.  It's
> like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing
> without much payoff except in very few edge scenarios.
> On Jul 15, 2014 10:59 AM, "Pieren" <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I discover that OSM contains 1575 relations of "type=network"
>> (taginfo). I guess its definition is coming from this wiki proposal:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network
>>
>> Quotes:
>> "A network groups together routes that share common characteristics,
>> e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road
>> network: "E 1", ..., "E 999"), ... "
>>
>> "Use cases
>>
>> Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other
>> bus routes exist in that city.
>>
>> Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on
>> blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green
>> sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for  20614 (view, XML,
>> Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and  20645 (view,
>> XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx).
>>
>> Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the
>> "D-Netz". However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as
>> well. "
>>
>> Plus some attached relations examples very explicite.
>>
>> As raised in the "discussion" page, is that not exactly breaking the
>> "relations are not categories" ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such
>> relations when we meet them ?
>>
>> Pieren
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140716/7880e176/attachment.html>