[Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Seth Deegan jayandseth at gmail.com
Sun Nov 22 16:19:45 UTC 2020


I recently found out about the Extremely long Amtrak route relations from
clay_c.

Your message is a bit confusing at first but I think you are proposing that
relations and super-relations should be used more-often to reduce the
complexity of processing data for data consumers?

In that case, I would support an API limit on the number of members in a
relation.
I agree that developers shouldn't have to handle this burden.

In response to DaveF's comment:

> Actually, splitting way because software can't handle it, is making the
> database more complex.


Yes, but benefits outweigh the costs.
If the editors did this automatically and still made the data
interpretable, this wouldn't be an issue.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the conversation.

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 5:29 AM Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
wrote:

> [cross-posted to talk-us@ and tagging@, please choose your follow-ups
> wisely]
>
> Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> > It seems that we are increasingly doing things to simplify the
> > model because certain tooling can't handle the real level of
> > complexity that exists in the real world.  I'm in favor of fixing
> > the tooling rather than neutering the data.
>
> I sincerely hope "I'm in favor of fixing" translates as "I'm planning to
> fix", though I fear I may be disappointed.
>
> More broadly, we need to nip this "oh just fix the tools" stuff in the
> bud.
>
> OSM optimises for the mapper, because mappers are our most valuable
> resource. That's how it's always been and that's how it should be.
>
> But that does not mean that volunteer tool authors should rewrite their
> tools to cope with the 0.1% case; nor that it is reasonable for mappers to
> make stuff ever more complex and expect developers to automatically fall in
> line; nor that any given map has a obligation to render this 0.1%, or
> indeed, anything that the map's creator doesn't want to render.
>
> The Tongass National Forest is not "in the real world", it is an
> artificial administrative construct drawn up on some bureaucrat's desk.
> It's not an actual forest where the boundaries represent a single
> contiguous mass of trees. Nothing is lost or "neutered" by mapping it as
> several relations (with a super-relation for completeness if you insist),
> just as nothing is lost by tagging Chesapeake Bay with the series of
> letters "c","o","a","s","t","l","i","n" and "e".
>
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Thanks,
Seth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201122/1ae2cc0a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list