[OSM-talk] Advanced relationships

Robert (Jamie) Munro rjmunro at arjam.net
Thu Jun 14 12:30:44 BST 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A Morris wrote:
> 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


I've started a wiki page.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Advanced_relationships

Please add any more useful examples to that page, and discuss
alternatives, problems, or improvements to the proposal on the
discussion page.

Please don't say "I can do one of your many examples already with this
much more complicated method" as an argument against this proposal. You
need to solve *all* of the examples to prove that the current data model
is adequate, and you need to solve them really simply to prove that this
suggestion is unnecessary.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGcSbiz+aYVHdncI0RAhVwAJ48vYqlHq8Id2KebhRGOryi9wrgogCgjy2m
S/dv5j+hNJweukGqLSE1KsQ=
=tRbV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the talk mailing list