[OSM-talk] Advanced relationships

[A Morris]

I am reading this thread with increasing incredulity.

Are there really people who don't think that relationships are fundamental
to any non-trivial geographical data model?

Seriously, using one way streets to somehow represent turn restrictions is
so wrong, I can't even formulate a coherent argument against it. It's like
trying to argue that water is wet.

+1 to all the posters trying to address this issue

Aled.



On 6/14/07, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian at sspaeth.de> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> > Or you need relationships.
> >
> > Oh, and when you have relationships you also get the 3 other benefits I
> > already listed and hundreds of others that we haven't thought of yet.
>
> Just wanted to express my +1 here. I know it's OSM's principle to be as
> simple as possible (which is a good thing, cf. Occam's Razor, Law of
> parsimony :-))
>
> However, things also need to be as complicated as they need to be and
> relationships could help to implement "superways" (like way1 and way2
> are really one way, although one is on a bridge, so render the name only
> once). It also helps to do things like turn restrictions without the
> need to kludge tags to nodes which express relationships.
>
> So this is just me expressing my support,
> Spaetz
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGcO/EbtVRNeSDtgERApXoAKD6I//Oz2H0ZM07LqyL58kZeZWqQwCffQbR
> kW2eXKJBbKTnFjSse8eclT4=
> =xAfN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070614/fed9ed4d/attachment.html>