[Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

OSM Volunteer stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Tue May 3 19:09:39 UTC 2016


In the USA, partly because we are such a geographically large part of the North American continent and partly because each of our fifty states is sovereign, I find that breaking apart very large relations so they are across a single state at a time (then perhaps these are collected into a super-relation) is often (though not always) a sensible approach.  It is part size (large relations with vast numbers of members are unwieldy), it is part “what sort of an entity is this politically?"

For example, there is a note in OSM’s Amtrak wiki page on the route=train relation for the California Zephyr:  "The relation is said to be so big it is hard to work with.”  That is something we might take to heart and break apart the relation into statewide components.  I haven’t done that, but somebody might, after considering that it makes editing easier, and that state-at-a-time is a good way to do this.  Even a simple web browser request to display this relation results in "Sorry, the data for the relation with the id 905830, took too long to retrieve." The practicality of potentially better avoiding edit conflicts has been mentioned, and is also true.

The number of elements in this Zephyr relation is over 2500, and that can make editing and display difficult.  When OSM bumps up against real limits of practicality like this, we should pay attention by discussing strategies like subdividing using sensible approaches and methodologies.  It may not always be obvious when to break apart a large relation into statewide components, but neither should it surprise us when somebody (for reasons of logical subdivision, practicality or both) does so.

SteveA
California
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160503/4fe61462/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list