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

Christopher Schmidt crschmidt at metacarta.com
Mon Apr 23 12:51:31 BST 2007


On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:37:19AM +0100, SteveC wrote:
> And yes you're right, topological is really useful since OSM is a wiki
> and we track changes in nodes. Otherwise moving an intersection of many
> roads would mean updating many linestrings not one node.

That leads to two alternatives, in my mind, not only one:
 * The data must be topological
 * Changes must be atomic and represent multiple geometry changes.

It seems that the latter is also a requirement stated by Frederik and
Jochen in their datamodel paper.

If clients implement topology -- JOSM already does, OpenLayers is
currently being made to -- then the situation to a *user* shouldn't change.
Only to a developer. (At least, that's my hope.) 

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta




More information about the talk mailing list