On 11/11/15 7:37 AM, David Earl wrote: > I can see the attraction of this, but I do always worry about gross > lack of backward compatibility being a huge barrier to adoption. If > you have to scramble to keep up with changes like this whenever they > happen, you aren't going to be keen to be a consumer of OSM data when > it's only peripheral to what you're trying to do. I hear all the > arguments about being able to move forward and so on, but if you can't > keep the customers, there's no point. > > Also relations are a massively bigger burden on a consumer. Every time > you get one you've got to do a look up in a potentially HUGE mass of > other data, so it probably has to be done via a database rather than > in memory. Getting the information you need becomes orders of > magnitude slower for every object. > it's an inevitable consequence of serializing a complex data structure. we either find ways to deal with it or else we accept limits on what we can accomplish.
richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
