Osm super relationship

Super-Relation - OpenStreetMap Wiki

osm super relationship

Relations play a very important role within the OSM data model. . Ultimately, the OSM Wiki outlines these super relations consume additional. US 41 (appears in 'ref' on way, on road route relation, and super . If openstreetmap-carto gets support for road route relations for the US guys. Available languages — Relation "Super-Relations" is a good concept on paper but none of the many OSM software applications is working with them.

The following chapter covers the whole mapping process using a very comprehensive case study, through which the reader understands how to work in the field, edit and finally upload the collected data. Based on this overview, the next chapter is slightly more technical, describing the data model followed by OSM. The information provided is necessary to understand how the OSM database is structured.

osm super relationship

Chapter 7 moves on to details, describing what objects need to be mapped and how this can be done by using tags. The examples provided help the user to move from simpler to more complicated representations.

The importance of this chapter, however, is in emphasising that, although the proposed tagging framework is not compulsory, it would be wise to do it as this will increase the consistency in the OSM database. Chapter 8 continues with map features, covering all other proposed mapping priorities. The split between the two chapters guides the user gradually from the most important features to those covered by expert OSM users, as otherwise mapping might have been far too difficult a task for new participants.

Chapter 9 describes Potlatchan online editor which is the most popular. The description is simple and complete, and by the end the user is ready to contribute to the OSM database.

The next chapter refers to JOSMan offline editor designed for advanced users, which is more powerful than Potlatch but more difficult to use — although the extensive instructions make the use of this tool almost as easy as Potlatch. Chapter 11 concludes the review of editors by providing basic information on 5 other editors, suitable for desktop or mobile use. Chapter 12 presents some of the tools for mappers, designed to handle the OSM data or perform quality assurance tests.

Among the capabilities described are viewing data in layers, monitoring changes in an area, viewing roads with no names, etc. The second part ends, in Chapter 13, with a description of the OSM licensing framework, giving the reader a detailed view of what source of data should be avoided when updating OSM to save it from copyright violations.

Part III of Ramm et al.

Super-Relation/Implementation - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Code is provided to assist the learning process. Chapter 15 provides information on how to download data, including the ability to download only changes and update an already downloaded version, explained further in a following chapter. The next three chapters dive into cartographic issues, with chapter 16 starting with Osmarenderwhich helps visualising OSM data.

With the help of many examples, the reader is shown how this tool can be used to render maps, and how to customise visualisation rules to create a personal map style.

Chapter 17 continues with Mapnik, a more efficient tool than Osmarender for large datasets.

osm super relationship

Its efficiency is the result of reading the data from a PostgreSQL database. A number of other tools are required to be installed for Mapnik; however, they are all listed with basic installation instructions. The chapter concludes with performance tips, with an example of layers used according to the zooming level so that rendering is faster.

The final renderer, described in chapter 18, is Kosmos. The rules used to transform OSM data into a map come from the wiki pages, so anyone in need of a personal map style will have to create a wiki page. There is a description of a tiling process using Kosmos, as well as of exporting and printing options. The chapter concludes by mentioning Maperitivethe successor to Kosmos to be released shortly.

Chapter 19 is devoted to mobile use of OSM.

osm super relationship

After explaining the basics of navigation and route planning, there is a detailed description of how to create and install OSM data on Garmin GPS receivers. Additional applications for various types of devices are briefly presented iPhones, iPods, Androidas well as other routing applications. Chapter 20 closes the third part of the book with an extensive discussion on licence issues of OSM data and its derivatives. Issue two - there's a fine line separating the different multipolygons - you can see this also at the same location http: One possibility to mark multipolygons as adjacent would be to mark the "imaginary" which should not show on map borders as a separate role, i.

osm super relationship

See my previous comment sletuffe Doesn't the "ref" attribute make more sense, and wouldn't a realistic example use much larger and non-repeated values than the repeated 1, 2, 3,? Unless someone can explain this, I suggest changing it. As for the values, a realistic relation would of course have much larger values, but this would make mentally following some of the examples such as File: So I think that using the unrealistic values is appropriate from a practical point of view.

If the answer is yes, could I add this example as beeing specifically valid so that mappers are more aware of such border cases? Some arguments for 1. Isn't it allready the case? The wiki page says: Is this what you want to make clearer? There are 2 cases: First, areas should not transform into multipolygons.

A seperate closed line using the same nodes works well and is more simple. You don't need a MP. It is to complicated to edit this for the most user. Superposing ways with the same nodes is still possible however, but both method can co-exists and both have advantages and drawbacks sletuffe In this situation, both methods have more pros than cons.

But transform everything into a MP, which using "connecting lines" like the example-link in my last postit is definitively not editable friendly. It's indeed not true that multipolygon relations have always allowed non-closed members.

Back in that was still an extension called "advanced multipolygon". Note that the reason given for allowing non-closed members was "This is useful for multipolygons encompassing very large areas".

So MasiMaster's suggestion is actually true to the original documented intent. Still, I like the new way of doing and both method can coexit one or more sletuffe Willi shows he is not agreeing to this change is not clearly showing that this proposed change to the wiki's multipolygon page should be done now so quickly.

I propose to stand by what the page was before the change, and ask for more users on the tagging list I'm sending the email. I'm reverting the page to what it was, and suggest we should gather more view point before applying such a change which clearly ask mappers not to use multipolygons like lot of examples are shown.

Multipolygons are designed to work with arbitrary numbers of ways. We used to have "simple multipolygons" and "advanced multipolygons" but nowadays we only have the advanced form; it is possible that you stumble across old wiki pages that only described the simple variant. What you can do is put in a sentence that says "ways used for inner and outer rings will normally be closed ways unless there are practical reasons to split them up".

Super-Relation

Otherwise, people will stop re-using e. Also, software authors must be aware that they need to support arbitrary numbers of ways forming the rings. This is not a "niche use". I think that "ways used for inner and outer rings should normally be closed ways unless there are strong practical reasons to split them up". Some people may consider it "practical" to turn adjacent closed ways into multipolygons just to avoid, say, 10 sequential shared nodes, and I clearly don't agree with that assesment.

Relation editing is less intuitive than basically any other editing operation in OSM and is therefore rarely the best choice if there is an alternative. While these relations might be somewhat easy for an experienced mapper to create, they are not even remotely beginner-friendly.

Complex multipolygons are a niche use, as they are not understood by casual mappers and not even supported by the main editor Potlatch. They can only be used by a few dedicated experts which makes them niche.

I believe this is becoming a problem as this excludes the majority of mappers from adding to or changing the complex constructs. This frustrates new and casual mappers and cuts off OSM from the majority of support and new data in those areas.

Techically, complex multipolygons are a workaround. The API and data structure of OSM ist not designed for multipolygons, which makes them so difficult to understand and cumbersome to handle. Until multipolyons are supported by the API, it would be great if we could agree to use the current workaround only for huge structures where it is definitely necessary and describe simple things in terms which all mappers can use.

  • OpenStreetMap Contribution Analysis
  • Super-Relation/Implementation
  • Talk:Relation:multipolygon

There are some reasons, why i tried to change this page: I think, non-closed ways forming an outer was only? I don't found a voting about using also for small areas. So I tried only to correct not to edit the meaning of the page. Right, Germany is only a part of the mapping- world.

I miss them speaking here. Right, multipolygons has developed itself further, but i think it is allowed, to question: But to me it sounds strange to mis use the term "good practise" in favor of personal taste.

Are there any figures that only a few dedicated experts can handle them and new and casual mappers are frustated by them?

📱442oons TAKEOVER Online Soccer Manager📱

These claims have been made over and over in the German forum without any proof. Why is it a workaround? And if someone thinks so it's up to him to come up with a better approach and implement it himself or convince someone to do that.

OSM was and is a result of doing not of complaining. The fact that there are only few restrictions has and still allows creative usage when mapping and processing the data. Further, are there groups of people that all exhibit this type of behavior around the same part of the map? If so, can we use this pattern of editing as a proxy for a group of map gardeners, or perhaps a healthy, vibrant, local OSM community that actively maintains their corner of the map?

osm super relationship

Exploring this notion of collaborative map-gardening can be done through network analysis, looking finding areas of the map where the same users are consistently focusing on the same areas or similar features. Co-Editing Networks Where do users consistently contribute alongside others? This visualization builds co-editing networks where users are connected to one another if they share a specified number and type of edits on the same tiles.

Two users could be connected if, for example, they both edited over 50 buildings on the same tile. Putting these pieces together Ultimately, the question to answer here is: That is, are contributors adding new objects or editing existing objects? While we may not have authoritative geospatial datasets for reference, other datasets can serve as proxy.