[OSM-talk] Inheritance of roles in nested relations

Hugh Barnes list.osm at hughbris.com
Sat Dec 20 22:14:33 GMT 2008

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:53:54 +0100
Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hugh Barnes wrote:
> > It's a shame. You have to admit it's a useful device and would
> > reduce duplication of work (creation and maintenance) and storage
> > significantly.
> Sure but it's not something that should be done on the API level. The 
> API is intended as an as-simple-as-possible storage engine. How you 
> interpret data coming out of the API is your (the client's) choice.

Right. I don't think I suggested the API, just client apps (and
community expectation, I guess).

> I think that in the long run, all tools should be able to, on a 
> fundamental level, accept a relation everywhere they would expect a
> way, and then substitute the relation's members.

That's right.

> Which would apply 
> recursively and thus neatly solve your problem.

Why would it necessarily apply recursively?

> I'm not sure there is a need to explicitly tag the fact that
> something is a "parent" or "child" relation in your case.

To provide clear guidance for clients, because as you said — and I think
is right, though I can't currently think of examples — this inheritance
is not always desirable. Also, component=yes prevents someone
deleting something that looks useless on its own.


More information about the talk mailing list