Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: > > the relation type page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation > > > > lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. > > > > Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into > > associatedStreet relations? > > > > Often there could be merge several relatedStreet relations together to > > one associatedStreet relations, as relatedStreets sometime only > > connected single houses to a street. > > I'm one of those pushing for type=street, and I'd be glad if we could merge > all > somethingStreet to it :) (which is less error-prone, less chars to type, > easier > to remember)
Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should try to reduce the different types one by one. > (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + > route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be > route=road) AFAIK type=route + route=road is different to the street relations. road routes: primary, secondary road routes with the same ref. street: houses and highway elements with the same name/address. > > Here is my current statistic of street-like relations: > > http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet_street.html > > Oh, nice. Here you can find other listings: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/index.html e.g. the list for italy: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/it.html Regards Werner _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
