[OSM-talk] Proposed Relations

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Allan" <gravitystorm at gmail.com>
To: "David Groom" <reviews at pacific-rim.net>
Cc: "Talk Openstreetmap" <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Relations


>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> 
> wrote:
>> The page
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations#Proposed_uses_of_Relations
>> has a large number of proposed uses of relations, but there never seems 
>> to
>> be any forward movement on these.
>>
>> However flawed the voting system for proposed tags is, at least there is 
>> a
>> recognised procedure, and eventually proposed tags either make it into 
>> the
>> mainstream of OSM or they don't.
>
> It's a matter of debate as to causation/correlation between the voting
> procedures and mainstream OSM :-)
>
>> But this doesn't seem to be the case with
>> proposed relations.
>>
>> I suspect the reason for this might be twofold.
>>
>> Firstly there is no recognised procedure for moving these forward.
>>
>> Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, many of the proposed uses of
>> relations require some degree of knowledge of what the main renderers /
>> other users of OSM data can actually cope with.  So for instance there 
>> would
>> be no point in me trying to move a particular proposal forward as I don't
>> know if in practice the aim of the proposal can be achieved.
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't have a solution to the problem, but just wanted to 
>> flag
>> it up as an issue.
>
> I would suggest concentrating on documenting the ones that are in use,
> such as multipolygons, cycle route relations. Even better is to
> concentrate on the ones that are in the db and widely consumed
>by  e.g. a renderer),

Is there any easy way to find what relations fit into the above category?

> e.g. a renderer), then on the ones in the db but not widely consumed
> (e.g. turn restrictions)

I there any easy way to find what relations fit into the above category?

>and pretty much ignore the fanciful
> I-think-it-would-be-great-if suggestions.
>

Well I'm never a fan of "fanciful  I-think-it-would-be-great-if 
suggestions."  :)

But I do see, for instance, great advantages to the 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways 
and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Dual_carriageways 
proposals.

David


> Cheers,
> Andy
>