Talk:Advanced relationships
I like this. I think it's fair to summarise it by saying it aims to
- allow the value of a tuple to be an ID for a node,segment or way, not just a text string
- but keeping the underlying philosophy of OSM's tagging model with arbritary tags allowed to be used
- and some level of referential integrity to make sure references don't dangle
Morwen 14:36, 13 June 2007 (BST)
- Would this proposal not also help to create a kind of superways (or however you want to call them)? Like stating: way 1 (bridge=no) and way 2 (bridge=2) belong together, so they should share values and renderes should print the street name only once. Also for routing we would know that this is a "follow the road" and not a "turn onto the next way" kind of direction... --spaetz 12:48, 14 June 2007 (BST)
- This isn't superways as such - as I've said under the Way_is_part_of_logical_road example, you can't group things using this, only make 1:1 links. Maybe that is all we need. You can sort of make groups by linking everything to a parent - e.g. all cities could link to the country they are in, but I don't think that works for superways. Rjmunro 17:00, 14 June 2007 (BST)
- Also if ID's were really unique between nodes/segments/ways, you would not need to have 9 tables but only a object_link table which contains all relationships. --spaetz 12:50, 14 June 2007 (BST)
- Yeah the 9 tables stuck out to me as something which looked quite clumsy, but maybe its a result of nodes segments and ways not being abstracted as much as they could be. But then, might this whole scheme be tending towards the The Inner Platform Effect anti-pattern? A data structure that is so flexibile... it's actually just an RDBMS -- Harry Wood 13:34, 14 June 2007 (BST)
- I think the mistake is clumping all 9 tables together and calling it AR. In reality there are nine completely different kinds of thing being modelled. Rjmunro 17:00, 14 June 2007 (BST)
How are editors going to provide a UI for this? Rjmunro 17:00, 14 June 2007 (BST)
I hope I haven't taken liberties with the main page.
- I have generalised the section on Bridges to any 'Grade Separated Crossing' (Bridge/Tunnel/Viaduct)
- I have generalised the 'is-in' tag to cover other sorts of relationship
- I have generalised 'restricted turn' to cover restricted, prohibited and prioritised manouevres
- I have aligned the language with GDF where I think it help clarify what we are talking about
Peter Miller] 11:34 20 June 2007 (BST)
What is the difference to Reltionships page?
Sorry but I do not understand what is the difference between Relationships and Advanced relationships pages, except that there is probably used little bit more technical language on this page. Is there a clear line? Thanks for explaining. --Gorn 18:59, 15 July 2007 (BST)
- And what's the difference between Relations and Relationships - what should be discussed and explained where? --Traut 11:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Inner Platform Effect
Thaks Harry to expressing what I wanted to say. However I scare that the whole idea of advanced relationships is prone to The Inner Platform Effect. There is lot of examples of good intentions which did not survive because of this. In fact when I was looking for the "wikimap" initiative I would join I have found quite a lot of them which obviously suffer from this. I think openstreetmap is the only one which has chance to escape it. Please keep it this way! I am not against adding new technical solutions, but it should be done with extreme care and understanding and with non-technical users in mind. Wikipedia has so big success because it is simple to dit. It is just that simple. So please KISS.--Gorn 20:37, 15 July 2007 (BST)