Re: [OSM-talk] Long Ways and API 0.6 - multirelations
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 22:24:47 +, Dave Stubbs wrote: > Umm.. yes. You've managed to get the complete wrong end of the stick :-) > I was saying that's what relations are there for. > > You need the route relation so you can represent easily both a local > and international route over the same ways, but it's no big deal if > you have to split the 420km international route into three sections. Do you have a wiki-page that defines how these multi-relations are to look like and what the exact semantics are? My software works well with some relations but has no support for such multi-relations yet. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Long Ways and API 0.6 - multirelations
Hi, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: >> You need the route relation so you can represent easily both a local >> and international route over the same ways, but it's no big deal if >> you have to split the 420km international route into three sections. > > Do you have a wiki-page that defines how these multi-relations are > to look like and what the exact semantics are? > My software works well with some relations but has no support for > such multi-relations yet. I don't think Dave was thinking of anything more than two different relations (partly) using the same ways. That would not warrant any special kind of relation. For situations in which you want relations contained in relations - e.g. in a situation where a nationwide cycle route comprises 5.000 ways and thus cannot be expressed in one single relation -, what I suggest is creating a number of "sub relations" that are members of a "super relation" with the same tags as the "sub relation". (The super relation might have a different "name" tag from the sub relations, in case you want to name your sub-relations "blah cycleway, southern section" or so). The "sub relations" will not receive any extra tags saying that they are sub relations. The "super relation" will not receive any extra tags saying that is is a super relation. At some point in the future we might think about removing tags from the sub relations and assuming some kind of tag inheritance but I'd not like to over-specify that today. For processing, I suggest that wherever a relation contains another relation and there is no special-case coding, the system should act as if all members of the sub relation were actually direct members of the super relation. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Long Ways and API 0.6 - multirelations
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:54:52 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I don't think Dave was thinking of anything more than two different > relations (partly) using the same ways. That would not warrant any > special kind of relation. > > For situations in which you want relations contained in relations - e.g. > in a situation where a nationwide cycle route comprises 5.000 ways and > thus cannot be expressed in one single relation -, what I suggest is > creating a number of "sub relations" that are members of a "super > relation" with the same tags as the "sub relation". (The super relation > might have a different "name" tag from the sub relations, in case you > want to name your sub-relations "blah cycleway, southern section" or so). > > The "sub relations" will not receive any extra tags saying that they are > sub relations. Some hint that a super-relation exists would be helpfull here. Else it will happen that the sub-relation AND the super-relation are processed (in my case: rendered if they are tagged as "type=street"). I could of cause internally add such a hint automatically with a tag in a special namespace that is removed before exporting/uploading that part of the map again (so it never ends up in the main-map or an editor). Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Long Ways and API 0.6 - multirelations
2009/2/9 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > > marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> >>> You need the route relation so you can represent easily both a local >>> and international route over the same ways, but it's no big deal if >>> you have to split the 420km international route into three sections. >> >> Do you have a wiki-page that defines how these multi-relations are >> to look like and what the exact semantics are? >> My software works well with some relations but has no support for >> such multi-relations yet. > > > I don't think Dave was thinking of anything more than two different > relations (partly) using the same ways. That would not warrant any special > kind of relation. > > For situations in which you want relations contained in relations - e.g. in > a situation where a nationwide cycle route comprises 5.000 ways and thus > cannot be expressed in one single relation -, what I suggest is creating a > number of "sub relations" that are members of a "super relation" with the > same tags as the "sub relation". (The super relation might have a different > "name" tag from the sub relations, in case you want to name your > sub-relations "blah cycleway, southern section" or so). > > The "sub relations" will not receive any extra tags saying that they are sub > relations. > > The "super relation" will not receive any extra tags saying that is is a > super relation. > The main problem there is that you lose the super relation if it's just made of sub relations. The map call won't return it, so you have to know it exists and what its ID is before you can edit it. It's not a problem for renderers or other planet processors as it'll be in there. It might be a problem for people parsing country osms depending on how your (and other) splitting tools handle it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Long Ways and API 0.6 - multirelations
Frederik Ramm schrieb: > I don't think Dave was thinking of anything more than two different > relations (partly) using the same ways. That would not warrant any > special kind of relation. > > For situations in which you want relations contained in relations - e.g. > in a situation where a nationwide cycle route comprises 5.000 ways and > thus cannot be expressed in one single relation -, what I suggest is > creating a number of "sub relations" that are members of a "super > relation" with the same tags as the "sub relation". (The super relation > might have a different "name" tag from the sub relations, in case you > want to name your sub-relations "blah cycleway, southern section" or so). I would solve this in a sort-of linked-list relation group. i.e. every section gets it's own relation, with the ways as members, plus the relations of the adjacent bits as additional members. (role=adjacent, perhaps) -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Long Ways and API 0.6 - multirelations
Hi, Dave Stubbs wrote: > The main problem there is that you lose the super relation if it's > just made of sub relations. You can use the relation//relations request to find out about the relations containing another relation, so they are not lost... > It might be a problem for people parsing country osms depending > on how your (and other) splitting tools handle it. ... but that's true, yes; the splitting tools would need to do a good job there. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
