Am Thursday 21 May 2009 schrieb Ben Laenen: > I'm not proposing it for everything, I'm only proposing it for something > where other structures have obvious setbacks. > fine. there seem to be people that are doing that.
> But from some reason using relations for something else than routes is > immediately regarded as some obfuscated mapping method. > IMO relations add a lot of complexity that's not necessary for many things. > > you have to get the whole relation, just to check, if some streets > > are part of it. size does matter here... > > with the tag-on-street approach you only need the street, nothing > > more. > > The exact same argument would apply to store routes as tags on ways from > now on. But that has its limitations, so we handle them with relations > now. So this is another area where tags on ways are insufficient, so > use relations instead. > you can't compare this! routes combine many different otherwise unrelated ways, they don't have to have any relations to the streets themselves. but the tagging that is discussed here describes attributes of the streets, and therefore belongs to the streets, even more when it can be done in such a simple way.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
