On 3/8/10 12:52 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > fully agree we should keep this target in mind. > But first we have to resolve a long list of problems first. > there shouldn't be any time when the renderer or other data consumers will be > left with completely broken data because step2 was done before step1 > osm doesn't have any way of enforcing anything we need to be careful to kill > the dinosaur too early > > > 1) route relation tagging has to be defined, agreed and accepted widely. > currently it's a mess. > agree on straightening out tagging. the ref tag on a route relation is a free-for-all right now, and there is not a clear concensus on the network tag either. on the other hand, if symbol is there and points at an appropriate svg file for a shield (which it generally does) then rendering may be straightforward. > 2) rendering, garmin maps, any other major data consumer must be updated to > use relations. currently none does to my knowledge. no wonder since 1) isn't > done > 3) define a grace period after 1,2) is done and consider to delete them after > that. No need to do it because any consumer understanding relations the right > way will push down the relation ref and ignore the way ref. > we probably want a transitional algorithm stated for renderers. many relations are built, but many are still missing. a use the relation if it exists and meets a set of requirements, else fall back on the ref tags on the ways sort of affair.
richard _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
