On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Richard Degelder<rtdegel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Simon, > > Combining the ways will defeat the possibilities of further use of the > GeoBase data for the area. Unfortunately the GeoBase NID is unique for the > single segment only and combining multiple segments will make adding > additional data based on those unique NIDs, such as address data, impossible > as will further updates to the data in future GeoBase updates. > > The only practical method to deal with the data is, as Richard Weait > suggested, to use relationships for the data that is common for the ways. > This is unlike the American model for the TIGER import but it also allows us > to modify and update the data much better based on future GeoBase updates > and to later incorporate additional data that we did not use in the intitial > GeoBase import. Of course this does not prevent individual mappers from > adding aditional details or even new ways onto the map at the same time or > for correcting the map where there are errors or changes prior to a GeoBase > update being rolled out over an area. >
The NIDs are going to go or be moved regardless, as people move and combine objects. Come updates or new data, I really don't think they are going to be all that useful. This means we really can't actually trust the NIDs, because they made correspond to an object in the Geobase data that in our db is something very different. Given we have roadmatcher, we can compare relative distances. We can also compare road names. These, combined with local knowledge, are what we are realistically going to have to rely on. Corey _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
