On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Karl Newman wrote:
> >> 2. Make sure the big three editors support ordering. Nobody will notice,
> >> nobody has to change what he does. Also, try and get Osmosis and the
> >> various mirror services (ROMA, XAPI) t
Hi,
Karl Newman wrote:
>> 2. Make sure the big three editors support ordering. Nobody will notice,
>> nobody has to change what he does. Also, try and get Osmosis and the
>> various mirror services (ROMA, XAPI) to support ordered relations.
>>
>
> I can confirm that Osmosis already maintains the
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Make sure the big three editors support ordering. Nobody will notice,
> nobody has to change what he does. Also, try and get Osmosis and the
> various mirror services (ROMA, XAPI) to support ordered relations.
>
I can c
Hi,
Ldp wrote:
> How would you detect order-unaware clients uploading such an ordered
> relation?
I wouldn't bother. My timeline:
1. Build the feature into API 0.6 and tell nobody about it. Nobody will
notice, nobody has to change what he does.
2. Make sure the big three editors support orderi
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> True but this only applies as soon as ordering is actually used.
That's why I said it would _become_ invalid. It is not an issue right now.
> Currently everyone has to assume that they get the data back shuffled,
> and whether that shuffling was done by the API (as it is
Hi,
>> 2. I want relations to become ordered and will try to sneak this into
>> API 0.6; there will be no noticeable change for any API client, just
>> that it so happens that things are returned in the order you put them
>> in, rather than in any order.
>
> There is one noticeable change here
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 2. I want relations to become ordered and will try to sneak this into
> API 0.6; there will be no noticeable change for any API client, just
> that it so happens that things are returned in the order you put them
> in, rather than in any order.
There is one noticeable ch
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Shaun McDonald wrote:
> > Relations are unordered. You could load the relation and all the ways
> > referenced by it, then check to see if each way has another way that has
> > the same start and end nodes, through
Hi,
Pieren wrote:
> I'm also surprised that the relation type=boundary is still considered
> as a proposal in the wiki.
[...]
> This is an example of "approved" relation which does not require a
> vote because it's already widely used.
There are no "approved" relations; there are those that are
Hi,
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> Relations are unordered. You could load the relation and all the ways
> referenced by it, then check to see if each way has another way that has
> the same start and end nodes, through a process of stitching.
1. Shaun is right BUT
2. I want relations to become order
On 3 Nov 2008, at 15:08, Hakan Tandogan wrote:
On Mon, November 3, 2008 14:49, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM, David Groom
I'm also surprised that the relation type=boundary is still
considered
as a proposal in the wiki. Having a quick look on the european
statistics
abou
On Mon, November 3, 2008 14:49, Pieren wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM, David Groom
>
>
> I'm also surprised that the relation type=boundary is still considered
> as a proposal in the wiki. Having a quick look on the european statistics
> about relations in tagwatch ([1]), the most popular
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:15 PM, David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would suggest concentrating on documenting the ones that are in use,
>> such as multipolygons, cycle route relations. Even better is to
>> concentrate on the ones that are in the db and widely consumed
>> by e.g. a render
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM, David Groom
I'm also surprised that the relation type=boundary is still considered
as a proposal in the wiki.
Having a quick look on the european statistics about relations in
tagwatch ([1]), the most popular relation "is" type=boundary (10297),
most of them for adm
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Groom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Talk Openstreetmap"
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Relations
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations#Proposed_uses_of_Relations
> has a large number of proposed uses of relations, but there never seems to
> be any forward movement on these.
>
> However flawed the v
The page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations#Proposed_uses_of_Relations
has a large number of proposed uses of relations, but there never seems to
be any forward movement on these.
However flawed the voting system for proposed tags is, at least there is a
recognised procedure, an
17 matches
Mail list logo
