Realtions advice needed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Realtions advice needed

Andy Mabbett
No, not marriage guidance ;-)

I've only limited experience of making relations in OSM. Today, I made this one:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6868921

How could it be improved? Should any tags be moved from the individual
parts, to the relation?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Realtions advice needed

Marc Gemis
AFAIK, there are no tools that support this relation. So moving an
attribute (e.g. name) from the way to the relation will break all data
consumers  (renderer, Nominatim, etc.) that read names on ways.


m.

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> No, not marriage guidance ;-)
>
> I've only limited experience of making relations in OSM. Today, I made this one:
>
>    https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6868921
>
> How could it be improved? Should any tags be moved from the individual
> parts, to the relation?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Realtions advice needed

sk53.osm
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett
Relations to group elements of a street together (associatedStreet is used more widely) are very rarely used by data consumers.

Transferring other tags to the relation would therefore effectively remove the road from the sight of renderers and routers.

In general it's just better to add your wikidata tag to each underlying way in the relation: it's not that hard to combine similarly tagged objects in post-processing OSM data. Routers and renderers do this all the time. General experience with associatedStreet has been that they can be quite hard to maintain, and are only worthwhile for use in unusual circumstances (i.e., it's better to place notionally redundant address tags than rely on a relation). I see no particular reason that type=street should be any different.

I think the list of relation types which work (i.e., are regularly consumed) is:
  • multipolygon
  • boundary
  • route
  • restriction

and no others, not even enforcement, although associatedStreet may be used in Nominatim.

Jerry


On 11 January 2017 at 15:05, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
No, not marriage guidance ;-)

I've only limited experience of making relations in OSM. Today, I made this one:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6868921

How could it be improved? Should any tags be moved from the individual
parts, to the relation?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb