zerebubuth at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 11:58:51 GMT 2008
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Dave Stubbs <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk> wrote:
>> sure, editor support isn't 100% yet, but why re-create a poor-man's
>> relations with name-based references, when we already have "proper"
> Because editor support is almost non-existent, and exceptionally confusing :-)
so lets fix the real problem! i'm sure everyone would like better
relation support in all editors :-)
> The advantage of using addr:street is that it does just work.
except when it doesn't - e.g: misspelled streets, deleted "in use"
> The only
> problem being that JOSM isn't clever enough at the moment to
> autocomplete the field based on existing streets in the area. It
> actually should be a drop down combo box letting you select the
> relevant street. And it's entirely possible to cleverly rename local
> objects' addr:street when the street name changes. Of course once
> you've gone to all that trouble you might as well have made the
> backend use a relation instead.
exactly! so why construct such a relation internally, where only JOSM
can use it?
> I like the clean relation data model, but find the addr:street thing
> much easier at the moment.
it is much easier at the moment, and supported by OSM inspector,
etc... which makes relatedStreet a hard sell, but i think it really is
the best way to do it.
addr:street=Foo on an addressable element is basically the same thing
as route=LCN:4 on a way. and i thought it was well understood why
using this method for routes is A Bad Idea, even if it is easier.
More information about the talk