[OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

2012-03-22 Thread LM_1
I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport lines (not having to add the same group to multiple route relations). The proposal is

Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

2012-03-22 Thread Richard Mann
Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. Put a tag on the elements saying this is part of Group X. Wait for data users to work out a way to grab groups of elements based on that tag ( maybe help code that

Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

2012-03-22 Thread Peter Wendorff
Hi. I think, the name of the relation is far from optimal, but the basic idea is not the worst, and we already use a similar approach in nested Multipolygon-relations. But: 1) type=group is far too unspecific and misleading, as it's NOT intended to group similar items together (like a

Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

2012-03-22 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mar 22, 2012 5:14 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups. I agree, this has the real potential to overcomplicate editing routes in places where

Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

2012-03-22 Thread Robert Scott
On Thursday 22 March 2012, LM_1 wrote: I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport lines (not having to add the same group to

Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

2012-03-22 Thread Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
On 3/22/2012 2:27 PM, Robert Scott wrote: On Thursday 22 March 2012, LM_1 wrote: I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple transport

Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

2012-03-22 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mar 22, 2012 7:32 AM, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Johnson wrote: On Mar 22, 2012 5:14 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial