[OSM-talk] Advanced Relationships

[Andy Robinson]

Peter Miller wrote:
>Sent: 20 June 2007 8:15 AM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Advanced Relationships
>
>
>
>>It is already a widely (not universally) accepted consensus that we don't
>need segments in their present form. Abolishing segments would make >many
>things easier. It is just that nobody got round to implement it yet (and it
>has to be implemented in several places at the same time).
>
>
>
>I think you need to be careful about saying that a change is 'widely'
>supported. My experience says that there is a considerable risk of a
>minority agreeing on a particular change and working up their ideas and
>enthusiasm only the find serious resistance when actual implementation is
>proposed. This can lead to frustration and worse. I think it is essential
>to agree the objectives first and get buy-in for these and for the process
>before going much further. Could you clarify:
>
>
>
>What problems are being solved by the 'abolishment of segments'?
>
>What other changes would accompany the 'abolishment of segments'?
>
>How will you get agreement for the changes?
>
>What will be the implications of the change for the tools and how will the
>editing process change?
>
>
>
>Personally it would seem to be appropriate to deprecate adding tags to
>segments and indeed change JOSM so that it isn't possible to attach tags to
>segments as this was one of the major confusions I fell into when I started
>using it.
>

On the face of it this is a good idea to get more people used to working
only with ways. Potlatch works with ways so it's probably about time that
JOSM took away the ability to tag segments. I'm sure a change like that
would make a big difference to the perception of segments in a pretty short
time. The decision about segments themselves can be left for a while until
the dust settles.

Cheers,

Andy

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>
>Message: 3
>
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:09:16 -0400
>
>From: Matthias Julius <lists at julius-net.net>
>
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Advanced relationships
>
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>
>Message-ID: <87r6o8jasz.fsf at julius-net.net>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
>Ian Sergeant <isergean at hih.com.au> writes:
>
>
>
>> Since all the current proposals being made both here and on the wiki
>
>> involve linking segments, if you think that is not a good idea to link
>
>> segments, then now is the time to explain why and possibly expand on a
>
>> better alternative.
>
>
>
>As I understand it advanced relationships are intended to be a generic way
>to link any types of object together.  They don't depend on the existence
>of segments.
>
>
>
>Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>
>Message: 4
>
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:21:30 +0200
>
>From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Advanced relationships
>
>To: Matthias Julius <lists at julius-net.net>
>
>Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
>
>Message-ID: <7CE0DC09-61A9-4D6C-BD98-0362923EED2C at remote.org>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>
>
>> Ian Sergeant <isergean at hih.com.au> writes:
>
>>
>
>>> Since all the current proposals being made both here and on the wiki
>
>>> involve linking segments, if you think that is not a good idea to
>
>>> link segments, then now is the time to explain why and possibly
>
>>> expand on a better alternative.
>
>>
>
>> As I understand it advanced relationships are intended to be a generic
>
>> way to link any types of object together.  They don't depend on the
>
>> existence of segments.
>
>
>
>I concur.
>
>
>
>It is already a widely (not universally) accepted consensus that we don't
>need segments in their present form. Abolishing segments would make many
>things easier. It is just that nobody got round to implement it yet (and it
>has to be implemented in several places at the same time).
>
>
>
>I would be prepared to use (or re-introduce) segments as part of a well-
>strucured data model like the GDF wher they form the base layer on which
>everything else is built. But currently segments are really just an extra
>layer of indirection, tempting people to do all sorts of things they really
>shouldn't.
>
>
>
>The "advanced relationship" proposals do not require segments.
>
>
>
>Bye
>
>Frederik
>
>
>
>--
>
>Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49?00.09' E008?23.33'
>
>
>
>
>
>