On 9/3/10, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> One thing to remember, as well, is that there are likely to be differences
> of opinion on whether disjoint segments are to be considered part of the
> same street or not. [...]
> So, having any sort of automated process join these streets in
> a relation bas
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> You could always check for relation membership right before uploading,
>> and present the dialogs at that point.
> I'm not sure if this would work. If you save a .osm file and close and
> r
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:41 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> If you do use these relations, please do it in a
> redundant way and keep the relevant information at the ways as well.
The biggest problem I have with this is that the name of the street
*isn't* relevant to the way. The name of the wa
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> unless you want it to check for relation membership
>> whenever a way is split (which makes it impossible to work offline),
>> there's no way to completely avoid the problem.
>
> You could
2010/9/3 Nathan Edgars II :
> Not if you right click on a relation and download its members.
this might indeed be a bug.
> Not if
> you manually download a way without checking "download referrers" Not
> if you download a XAPI query of only ways.
this is user failure. If you download an object
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> How are you going to avoid relation damage from incomplete uploads?
Make sure you upload the relation and the ways in the same POST
request. Those are guaranteed to be all-or-none, right?
___
T
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> unless you want it to check for relation membership
> whenever a way is split (which makes it impossible to work offline),
> there's no way to completely avoid the problem.
You could always check for relation membership right before uploa
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Elena of Valhalla
wrote:
> On 9/3/10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> [...]
>> Split a way and save the change without updating the relation that
>> contains the way. Voila, broken relation. This happens more often than
>> one might think; for example downloading relati
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Elena of Valhalla
wrote:
> anyway, this is an example of a problem that can (and will) be solved
> with better support for relations in the editors, not a problem
> intrinsic in the data model.
Agreed, though it's a problem which is tough to solve in the editor
wit
On 9/3/10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> [...]
> Split a way and save the change without updating the relation that
> contains the way. Voila, broken relation. This happens more often than
> one might think; for example downloading relation members in JOSM
> doesn't check for and download any relation
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/3 Anthony :
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> Split a way and save the change without updating the relation that
>>> contains the way. Voila, broken relation. This happens more often than
>>> one mi
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> One thing to remember, as well, is that there are likely to be differences of
> opinion on
> whether disjoint segments are to be considered part of the same street or
> not. For
> example, the street I live on was divided into two separ
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/3 Anthony :
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> Split a way and save the change without updating the relation that
>>> contains the way. Voila, broken relation. This happens more often than
>>> one mi
communities. So,
having any sort of automated process join these streets in a relation based
upon shared names would result in confusion.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Using route=road to group the segments of a street(was:
Re: Reasons for associatedStreet?)
From
2010/9/3 Anthony :
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Split a way and save the change without updating the relation that
>> contains the way. Voila, broken relation. This happens more often than
>> one might think; for example downloading relation members in JOSM
>> does
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Split a way and save the change without updating the relation that
> contains the way. Voila, broken relation. This happens more often than
> one might think; for example downloading relation members in JOSM
> doesn't check for and downloa
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Elena of Valhalla
wrote:
> I know that relations aren't currently well supported (but they are
> better supported than they were, say, one year ago), and I know that
> right now it is better to duplicate the informations, but I hope that
> in the future editors wil
On 9/1/10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I would not recommend this. Although it is more "elegant" from an IT
> point of view it is utterly vulnerable to break. Relations break up
> all the time, due to insufficient editor capabilities and
> unexperienced users (at least for the moment). We shouldn
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
>>> "route", even if the way is split (beca
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>>>
However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logi
2010/9/1 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> +1, e.g. it allows you to download and select the complete road with
> one command.
But what's a "road"? All segments with the same name? Continuing
Segments of the same road type or administrative class, even if other
ways with the same name branch off? etc...
I
2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> But why does this "logical unit" need to be grouped in a relation? I
>> don't see any benefit to it.
>
> The benefit is intrinsic in data organization.
+1, e.g. it allows you to download and select the comple
2010/9/1 Elena of Valhalla :
> On 9/1/10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> No, I know what you're grouping. It's the why that I'm unsure about.
>> Where's the benefit in this relation?
>
> it would be useful to manage common data (e.g. the name) in the
> relation instead of having to update it in every
On 01/09/2010 11:50, David Paleino wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But why does this "logical unit" need to be grouped in a relation? I
don't see any benefit to it.
The benefit is intrinsic in data organization.
and in object representation.
--
FrViP
2010/9/1 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
>>> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
>>>
On 9/1/10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> No, I know what you're grouping. It's the why that I'm unsure about.
> Where's the benefit in this relation?
it would be useful to manage common data (e.g. the name) in the
relation instead of having to update it in every part of the road
I'm not so sure abou
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >> Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
> >
> > I'm using that because I consider "Foo
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>
>> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
>> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
>> classifications, different tags, w
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
> classifications, different tags, whatever).
See, for example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, David Paleino wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
>
> I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
> "route", even if the way is split (becaus
30 matches
Mail list logo
