[Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles

[Paul Johnson]

On 02/05/2011 09:14 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
> Sure, relations get you an additional degree of normalization. And using
> relations to carry route/network tags gets the job done, granted. But at
> what cost?
> 
> I've yet to hear a convincing argument that justifies the additional
> complexity of relations as they are being championed as carriers of
> route/network tags, nor have I heard why applying tags with
> highly-specific keys directly to ways is so fundamentally flawed that it
> warrants the added complexity of relations.

What's complex about relations?

> As if to prove my point, the whole reason this thread even exists (if my
> understanding is correct) is that those who are trying to import data
> from other GIS formats (Shapefiles) are being stymied by the fact that
> the tags-to-relations-to-ways model turns a non-trivial task into a head
> scratcher.

Sounds like a toolchain problem.  Maybe the tools need to be fixed.

> And, unlike the current situation of keys-that-aren't-really-keys,
> _cycleway:oregon_ represents one concept, and one concept only:
> cycleways in Oregon.

Where is that key even being used?  Cycleway relations have been around
for a LONG time now, to the degree that there's even a renderer that
specializes in highlighting exactly these.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20110205/cacff006/attachment.pgp>