[OSM-talk] A proposal to improve relation handling

[NopMap]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
>> 2. Treat relation membership as a characteristic of the members.
> 
> I do not think this is a good idea. It seems conceptually wrong to me. 
> If the public transit authority creates a new bus route, does that 
> really change all the roads along which the bus runs? Is the road any 
> different on the ground the day after the bus route has been introduced?
> 

I believe the answer is somewhere in between. It is true that adding it to a
relation is not a change to the core data of a way. But having an indication
in the way that relations exist and which ones they are would be a
tremendous improvement for handling and understanding the data. Especially
if you are not a power mapper and are not even aware that the object you are
handling may be involved in relations or if you do not have a local PostGIS
database or a complex editor to already do the searching for you.

Maybe the way to go is an optional part with metainfo about relation
membership which can be requested with an additional parameter or alternate
call. The API should have that information readily available when it
compounds the data.

In any case, such double linking information should be ignored when an
object is uploaded to the API to avoid conflicts between way->relation and
relation->way linking.

bye
                        Nop


--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/A-proposal-to-improve-relation-handling-tp6714787p6719356.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.