[OSM-talk] Topology (was: OSM the mediocre alternative)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Johnny Doe <uucp1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> please read about the GRASS vector data model before
> claiming a fundamental incompatibility between Simple
> Features and a topological network:
> http://grass.itc.it/grass62/manuals/html62_user/vectorintro.html

I never claimed a fundamental incompatibility! I just thought 
Christopher wanted to say we don't need topology except for routing, and 
answered I believe we also need topology for editing.

In our paper, Jochen and I conclude that we should ideally have 
something that has geometry *and* topology, and exactly that seems to be 
the vector model described on the GRASS page.

It is very interesting for me to see that they seem to have a working 
solution for mixing the two. As said before, I had only been aware of 
the somewhat bungled PostGIS attempt and the Oracle approach which is 
said to work (but I didn't look much into that because I felt that I'd 
not make a lot of friends by demanding OSM switch to an Oracle backend ;-)

Thank you for the pointer.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'