[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - architect=*

[Frankie Roberto]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Jonathan Bennett <
openstreetmap at jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote:


> > "Relations are not Categories" uses the argument that you can query for
> > all objects that carry a tag. This isn't enough, however, if the
> > combined information from tags and coordinates doesn't qualify as an
> > unique identifier. The situation for architects, imo, resembles the
> > route relations (also in that there can be more than one architect),
> > thus there is a case for relations.
>
> I disagree. The reason we use relations for routes is that each section
> of the route are part of the same "thing" -- a signed route that uses
> many different sections of highway. While each individual section may
> have some other identity, the route exists as a separate abstract
> entity. A route is also a geographic entity.
>
> Buildings designed by the same architect don't form part of some greater
> whole -- it's just metadata about the buildings themselves, and the
> relationship between them certainly isn't geographical. That's why using
> a relation to group them would simply be classification.
>

I agree - think there's a broad agreement on this now.

Whilst having to deal with ambiguities and synonyms isn't ideal from a
perfect data perspective, I think it fits in with the OSM practise of using
unrestricted tagging in the first place, and making it as easy as possible
to contribute data.

Incidentally, the same problem exists for operator=*, and I notice that
there's a proposal to use relations for that:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Operators

Frankie


-- 
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090612/baf9fc63/attachment.html>