[Openstreetmap] Re: Naming segments using applet

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Sun Dec 18 02:13:01 GMT 2005

* @ 16/12/05 04:18:20 PM krsears at starband.net wrote:
> Hey folks,
>   This is going to get out-of-hand with the current db schema real
> quick.  The current schema is highly road/street paradigm dependant.  

I won't repeat the comments already made which I agree with generally
other than a few points. Firstly, people telling me to use GIS OGC
standards are 10 a penny. People willing to touch it with a barge pole
and actually work on it are absent.

As people keep telling me, I'm a pragmatist. And being pragmatic, nobody
wants to work on these things. That might be a great loss, and if you
have a way to fix it, let's work on that.

A few more things:

* @ 16/12/05 06:15:45 PM krsears at starband.net wrote:
> Already, there are instances with streetmaps where I can see problems.
> For instance, in the US and Canada (I am not sure about across the pond)
> there are many roadways that "change" monikers or function as part of 2
> or more routes.  These may diverge into multiple separate paths,
> converge from others, or even "jump" to another road.  There is no
> facility for this in the current db.  Also, interstate highway systems
> don't seem to be a strong point either as their associated
> entryways/exits, viaways, overpasses, and the like aren't symbolized.

The database can handle all that as soon as we get streets working.

> I would recommend moving to the OGC (Open GIS Consortium) schemas as
> these are usable by many GIS packages already.  Not to insult the great

There are many. The problem is, most of them are hard to use and
maintain for a variety of reasons.

> There's nothing special about 'wiki'-ing with GIS data.  The maps are
> visualized at the client end.  The database controls the changes.  Been
> doing that for a very long time.

That is not true. By using simple primatives we're able to track changes
very easily. You seem to be advocating storing arbitrary geometry,
versioned, and thrown around WFS-T. There are computational and storage
requirements let alone UI and bandwidth issues to consider there. And
then you have to find someone to work on it. For free.

I can't find it but somewhere I think you suggested using mapserver. We
do. It's unthreaded, slow, hard to extend... and I can't wait to replace

I'm not trying to be negative. In a way, I agree with you but it's not
something I have time for or that I've found anyone wants to work on.

have fun,

SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/

More information about the talk mailing list