Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > see the difference is I have done such edits and many others have done it. > We know what we are talking about. do it and you will never write > something ignorant and stupid as this. > flamewar commences and this comment is extremely unhelpful so you suggest that someone like myself makes up some massive relations just to see what happens?? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 9 February 2010 14:14, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > see the difference is I have done such edits and many others have done it. We > know what we are talking about. Then why didn't you report a bug so less information is attempted to be returned? You still have the problem, breaking it up into 2 relations didn't fix it, and as time passes even more changes will occur, the number of objects isn't the main problem. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 9 February 2010 14:14, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > see the difference is I have done such edits and many others have done it. We > know what we are talking about. > do it and you will never write something ignorant and stupid as this. As I said, the problem seems to be too many changes, not too many objects. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 8 Feb 2010, at 20:03 , John Smith wrote: > On 9 February 2010 14:00, John Smith wrote: >>> Yes, all you are doing is coming up with work arounds to current >>> issues, the issues should be fixed properly. >> >> Apart from the obvious you aren't uploading/download every single >> object referenced by the relation every time you edit it, and the >> references to objects in the relation should still be reasonbly small >> so I don't see what the fuss is all about. >> > > Sorry, the fuss is about too many changes, not the relation itself, > this is an issue in and off itself, but isn't the same thing as > bundling 3000+ objects into a relation. see the difference is I have done such edits and many others have done it. We know what we are talking about. do it and you will never write something ignorant and stupid as this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 9 February 2010 14:00, John Smith wrote: >> Yes, all you are doing is coming up with work arounds to current >> issues, the issues should be fixed properly. > > Apart from the obvious you aren't uploading/download every single > object referenced by the relation every time you edit it, and the > references to objects in the relation should still be reasonbly small > so I don't see what the fuss is all about. > Sorry, the fuss is about too many changes, not the relation itself, this is an issue in and off itself, but isn't the same thing as bundling 3000+ objects into a relation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
> Yes, all you are doing is coming up with work arounds to current > issues, the issues should be fixed properly. Apart from the obvious you aren't uploading/download every single object referenced by the relation every time you edit it, and the references to objects in the relation should still be reasonbly small so I don't see what the fuss is all about. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 9 February 2010 13:47, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > 1) theory: tags on the super relation will always supersede tags lower in > hierarchy. conflicting tags don't matter. Actually this is disjointed, ways should override relations and relations should override super relations. > 2) practical editing: we are talking about a relation hierarch consisting of > thousands of members. they have to be split for many reasons. editing speed, > upload speed, query speed … > some have been created when Potlatch worked in live mode only and josm speed > exponentially decrease with the size of a relation, uploads didn't finish > because of network/server interrupts > as an example relation 94043 has 1512 members and 937 versions. this only one > direction. other direction has 1525 members. It is not possible to get the > history from the server "Sorry, the data for the relation with the id 94043, > took too long to retrieve." > any split of any road segment for a bridge, speed limit change … requires a > new version and increases the number of members. > do you still think a potential inconsistency has any relevance compared to > this? Yes, all you are doing is coming up with work arounds to current issues, the issues should be fixed properly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 8 Feb 2010, at 18:28 , John Smith wrote: > On 9 February 2010 12:20, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >> what is wrong with 2 relations? >> I didn't say 2 are needed but why do you think 2 is bad? > > It creates redundant data, and makes it easier to get conflicting data > if both aren't updated consistently. > > It also gives people the opportunity to merge them, possibly incorrectly. 1) theory: tags on the super relation will always supersede tags lower in hierarchy. conflicting tags don't matter. 2) practical editing: we are talking about a relation hierarch consisting of thousands of members. they have to be split for many reasons. editing speed, upload speed, query speed … some have been created when Potlatch worked in live mode only and josm speed exponentially decrease with the size of a relation, uploads didn't finish because of network/server interrupts as an example relation 94043 has 1512 members and 937 versions. this only one direction. other direction has 1525 members. It is not possible to get the history from the server "Sorry, the data for the relation with the id 94043, took too long to retrieve." any split of any road segment for a bridge, speed limit change … requires a new version and increases the number of members. do you still think a potential inconsistency has any relevance compared to this? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 9 February 2010 12:20, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > what is wrong with 2 relations? > I didn't say 2 are needed but why do you think 2 is bad? It creates redundant data, and makes it easier to get conflicting data if both aren't updated consistently. It also gives people the opportunity to merge them, possibly incorrectly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
what is wrong with 2 relations? I didn't say 2 are needed but why do you think 2 is bad? On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:38 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 9 February 2010 11:21, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API > 0.6 > > You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes > this > > is a must. 2 relations may use the same road in different directions. on > a > > highway ref one can argue this is not needed but it's still a good idea. > > So apply roles, I don't see why this needs to be 2 relations, you can > still sort them properly now regardless. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 9 February 2010 11:21, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API 0.6 > You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes this > is a must. 2 relations may use the same road in different directions. on a > highway ref one can argue this is not needed but it's still a good idea. So apply roles, I don't see why this needs to be 2 relations, you can still sort them properly now regardless. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> >> >> Why does there need to be 2 relations for this? >> >> besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API > 0.6 You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes > this is a must. 2 relations may use the same road in different directions. > on a highway ref one can argue this is not needed but it's still a good > idea. > > Another thing to remember is that the relation analyzer and relation browsers don't support super-relations *yet*. My gut feeling is that if we start using super-relations in a consistent manner, it's more likely that the analyzer (and hopefully the API) will begin supporting them consistantly. In the long run, using super-relations to create relation hierarchy would allow us to separate physical attributes of a way (or node) from the logical attributes of a route. ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM, John Smith wrote: > > > Why does there need to be 2 relations for this? > > besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API 0.6 You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes this is a must. 2 relations may use the same road in different directions. on a highway ref one can argue this is not needed but it's still a good idea. > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 9 February 2010 11:01, Chris Hunter wrote: > Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one > to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation > with rolls per state question. Why does there need to be 2 relations for this? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and what > the wiki calls for. from > > Agreed. One of the reasons I started this discussion was to make sure that what the wiki calls for is still "right". As far as rendering the shields go, I think we should stick with the established tagging scheme and let whoever writes the parser worry about stripping the network=US: out of US:* . > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations > > we see: > > network=US:I, US:I:BUSINESS, US:I:DOWNTOWN, US:I:FUTURE Required. > Business, downtown and future routes have their own signage > > and > > ref=* Required. ex. 90 > > and many people have been busy building relations to fit this > specification. > > from > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations > > network=US:US > ref=* ex. 20 > > and so forth. > > > Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation with rolls per state question. The Diff code is a little tangled, but from the WIKI, it looks like only interstates I-24, I-26, I-84 were merged from 2-relations into 1-relation with roles. The rest of the system still has the relation numbers listed in the WIKI. From what I can see, it looks like there's no clear winner between the two systems, although quite a few Interstates are still missing supers. I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that need to be split into dual carriageways. Chris Hunter DiverCTH ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
