Hi LM_1 Here is the first opnion in favor of using relations in this thread, let's debate :)
2013/4/12 LM_1 <flukas.robot+...@gmail.com> > 1) All situations complex and simple can be mapped in the same way - this > makes my mapping easier. > That's the point which is highlighted by data quality and consistency persons. I would love this too but it's hard for me to make a choice between mappers load of work and data consuming easing. Those seem to be incompatible, don't you? > 2) Single real object can have all the information on one place only, not > on 50+ osm objects (eg. name of long streets). > Concerning power plants, type of primitive doesn't matter since all plant's information is stored whether in a relation or in a closed area. > 3) Higher level, more abstract features can be handled more easily. > That's a good point. With relations, all power plants would be mapped the same way and consuming rules would be simpler. => Mapping rules would implicitly be too : "Okay a power plant, let's use a relation" instead of "Errr a power plant, is it closed or is it dispersed?" But look above what Martin Vonwald thinks about data consuming :) > 4) With appropriate editor (eg. JOSM with Relation Toolbox) it is no more > difficult to learn than drawing a square. > +1 > 10) Relations just make sense. > It makes relational sense, but not spatially sense, to be objective. It would be great to find out what are the "state of the art" in OSM to make a better choice than "heads or tails" : *what is used for airports, train stations, factories,... ?* If we can't do that, I'll make a choice which won't satisfy everyone here and *the proposal may not be accepted* (which is not an option for me when I look back to the amount of time I spent on it). Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
