[OSM-talk] implementation of relations in josm

[Dave Stubbs]

On 03/01/2008, bvh <bvh-osm at irule.be> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:29:16AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > I agree. It is however again one of the problems where different
> > relations will need different actions - when a way in a route relation
> > is split, both new ways need to be members, but when a way in a turn
> > restriction relation is split, only the one at the junction should be
> > a member.
>
> Except if the way is a member with role "via" in which case both parts
> should be kept in the relation.
>
> > Somehow I always thought that we should have a rather complex
> > "presets" style configuration file for JOSM that tells it what to do
> > with various kinds of relations but maybe a simple hack would be
> > better than nothing for now; in the case of splitting ways perhaps
> > just always ask the user what he wants.
>
> Given how difficult specifying these kind of constraints can become,
> it might be better to just 'hardcode' it instead of inventing a
> specification format that is nearly going to be a complete programming
> language in itself?

Well, if they did get that complicated you could always script them --
ie: actually embed some python/javascript in the presets file. We had
a similar problem in an app I was developing at work, so I just used
Rhino with a small simple API exposed to the javascript context.