[OSM-talk] Timezones (was: Deleting data)
lester at lsces.co.uk
Tue Oct 22 13:06:14 UTC 2013
Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I don't think we really need layers, but could use editors that are
> semantically aware of things like boundaries,
> and put them in the background until needed.
> As far as I see, if we just prevent certain ways or nodes to share nodes with
> others, that is as good as a layer. So if we say "boundary=* can only share
> nodes with each other", then that is a layer. I think those rules are better
> then inventing some arbitrary fixed layers.
I think that this is part of the 'problem'
Sharing nodes was thought to be a good idea, but that only works well when all
of the data is tightly related. Once one introduces 'loosly' related data, then
there is a need for separating nodes depending on their 'layer'.
I feel we are getting to the point where we need to think about 'sharing' ways
rather than jst sharing nodes. Returning to the example of field boundaries, an
existing 'way' that forms the edge between two other areas only needs to exist
once, so drawing the next field can be done using the existing boundaries, and
many areas simply become relations picking up a list of ways. Moving to the
higher levels, boundaries of the smaller elements get used in a lest of ways
bounding the bigger one. These shared ways would have their own set of nodes
which may relate to underlying ways ... rivers for example ... but would not
neceserally be the same way. Information would be managed in 'layers' but these
may well be tagged by time rather than 'level' and just allow an easier way to
filter what is being used?
Currently what we are doing with areas when used for objects like land use IS wrong?
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
More information about the talk