Talk:Types of relation
I add a status column, because some relations like site are in discusion and it think it's better to advertise the mappers. For restriction, i dont found relation discussion in Proposed features/Conditional restrictions and in Relation:restriction
- The status is pretty cool, what do you think about putting the proposals into tables, too.
|boundary segment||unknown||to group ways into a linear boundary||usage: 0, superseeded by type=multilinestring|
|region||abandoned||Represents many hierarchies on the map like districts forming a city, etc||usage: 24, ...|
- Do you have an idea how we can get clear status of those relations that have no proposals? --Werner2101 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The first version of Relation:restriction actually is written like a proposal: . That's not the point, though. Back when somebody started this page, they used to say that relations don't have the proposal-vote-accept procedure at all. When a relation fullfils a need, and is to some extent widely used both by mappers and by at least some data consumer, it becomes an "establish relation" - just like with tags, really. In the tag pages the term has been "defacto approved". This hasn't changed. There are widely used relations, widely consumed relations, and relations that misuse the data type (Relations are not categories comes to mind first). These categories can, and do, partially overlap. The last two much smaller categories are "some uses but nobody else cares about them" and "proposed relations with little or no uses". Alv (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's ok that not all relations have a proposal. e.g. multipolygon and boundary is used a lot. But if you read down the list of proposals, it's very hard to find out whether a relation is used or not, or whether it has been replaced by other taggings. Using a status defacto approved for restriction, multipolygons, ... is fine. --Werner2101 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
deprecating relation types
I'm wondering if we have a possibility to get rid of old relation types. Just like Creating a proposal is used to create new tagging.
I think we have to:
- discuss about why the relation is no longer needed or it's successor
- voting ?
- cleaning up the osm database
- marking proposals, wiki pages that contain information about the deprecated relations
e.g. the Relations/Proposed/Rivers with type=river is obsolete an no longer used.
The relatedStreet relation is no longer used in the osm database. I've cleaned up the last few relations and converted them into associatedStreet relations.