[OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> But changing it is probably a bad idea.  Do we really want a relation
>> with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing
>> the buildings?
>
> wow, 500 ways and 50,000 addresses just for one street ! Show me the map !

What would you say is the maximum number of ways/addresses for one street?

>> After rereading
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>> I'm going to conclude that the proper place to put address information
>> is in the building data, not in the street data, and that
>> associatedStreet should therefore be deprecated.
>
> And if you read more on the wiki, you will discover that the Karlsruhe
> schema is allowing both.

I've read that.  And what I'm saying is that it should only allow one.

"Grouping relations really only make sense if the grouping is neither
geographical (as discussed above) nor exclusive (like the HSBC example
- the cash machine is unlikely to be operated by two different
institutions at the same time). "

The associatedStreet relation is exclusive.  There is only one
associated street for any address.

The street relation, on the other hand, is not exclusive.  There are
ways (e.g. in intersections) which are part of multiple streets.