[OSM-talk] Long Ways and API 0.6

Matthias Julius lists at julius-net.net
Mon Feb 9 14:54:21 GMT 2009

Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> writes:

> There being multiple relations for the same walking route is something 
> that happens every day, not because of the size limit but because 
> someone working on a local bit of the route might not be aware of 
> someone else working on another local bit until they meet. It is 
> actually *easier* to then combine the parts in a super relation than to 
> move all the members from one part-relation to the other.
> I'm pretty sure we'll soon have good tools to work with that kind of 
> thing. And anyway, if the super-relation is ignored and someone just 
> sees the smaller parts of the walking route, that's not a big loss is it?

What I don't like here is that this leads to duplication of data.
Super-relations are fine, but IMHO tags should be moved to the
super-relation.  And then it would be a big loss if a renderer doesn't
know how to deal with it.

What is an application actually supposed to do when the tagging of of
a relation contradicts the tagging of its members?  For example: a
super-relation with "ref=E50" with a member-relation with "ref=E52"
which has a way tagged with "ref=E58"


More information about the talk mailing list