[OSM-talk] naming of ways, and multiple ways per segment.

Immanuel Scholz immanuel.scholz at gmx.de
Tue Mar 14 16:31:25 GMT 2006


Hi,

> So, the question is when creating ways from segments, do I create four
> ways, one with the name "A598", one "Ballards Lane", one "Regents Park
> Road", and one "Finchley Road" ?

Yep. That's what I would do.


> When a segment is part of multiple ways like this, in what order should
> the key/values have precedence?

I would not define a global precendence rule. For some keys, it can be the
circumstances that decide the precendence. As example, names should be
displayed accordingly to the zoom level and the class property.

Other properties may conflict with each other, as example "class=river"
and "class=slope".  (hm... maybe valid during spring? ;)


> For instance, if I defined the A598 as class=primary, but "Regents Park
> Road" as class=secondary, and a segment within it as class=minor, how
> should that conflict be resolved?

"Resolved"? Do you mean: How is the street displayed on the current osm
website? Well, that may depend on the zoom level...? It could also depend
on personal preference settings, if someone code it.

But for the database, this does not need any resolution. The ways can
coexist next to each other fine. Maybe one of the next API's get an filter
select for properties, then some websites can specialize their map drawing
for slopes only... ;-)


> I reckon that key/values on the individual segment should always take
> priority over that on a way laid down over that segment.

I would say that key/values are interpreted differently depending on
whether they are on the segment or on a way over this segment.

As example "car=no" on a way means that you cannot drive the way with a
car, maybe because there is a physical obstacle somewhere blocking you (a
wall?).
But it may be possible that every single line segment for itself is
accissable by car, so all segments have "car=yes" set.


> By the way, thanks to Imi for such a speedy RC release of something that
> makes use of the new API.

Well, thanks. But in fact I already had prepared the way stuff for a long
time and only waited to enable it when the server support it ;-).


Ciao, Imi.






More information about the talk mailing list