[OSM-talk] API v7

David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com
Tue Aug 19 00:10:41 BST 2008


On 18/08/2008 22:42, Henry Loenwind wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> first, the following are some half-baked ideas I just want to get out of 
> my head because I need the space they are taking up ;)
> 
...
> 
> Then it struck me. We are clinging to our current data model really 
> hard. Too hard. Maybe we need to start exploring how to extend it to 
> make mapping easier, instead of trying to put everything ways and nodes 
> cannot do into relations? (I said "start exploring", emphasis on that!)
> 
> Reoccurring problem 1: Way splitting. 
 > ...
> 
> Reoccurring problem 2: Two side of a coin, oops, a way. Most ways have 
> two sides, often they are the same, but also often they are not. ...

I'm not sure what the problem is you are trying to solve.

Why does it matter if a street is broken up into separate ways(*)?

All that joining them together does is to allow you to share a common 
name among several otherwise different pieces, and only then when they 
are contiguous and not branching. So it only really solves the 
duplication of names on consecutive that we have at the moment, at the 
cost of extra complexity. I agree it doesn't "feel" quite right, but it 
works.

The user interface gestures and procedures in marking out bridges, speed 
limits and the like would be much the same whatever the underlying data 
representation - you still have to say somehow or other "this is where 
the bridge/speed limit/whatever starts" and "this is where it ends". I'm 
sure we could work harder on the tools to make building things like 
bridges easier, whatever the storage technique.

The problems we've been discussing have involved the relationship 
between objects that really are different - like relating the ways that 
go over a bridge from those that go under. Others include
turn restrictions, a single bridge carrying more than one road, things 
which utilise ways, like bus routes, and so on.

David

(*) indeed is the commonality necessarily dictated by name - why not 
road number for example? There's lots of different ways pieces of road 
could be grouped, name just being the most obvious.




More information about the talk mailing list