Talk:Types of relation

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

collection

What about type=collection? I don't find it as approved/existing, neither do I find as rejected or obsolete. However, I see multiple instances. Especially Romanian embassies, and a border fence at South of Hungary. ITinerisKft (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There's some documentation at Relations/Proposed/Collected Ways, although that seems to be more specific than some of the examples you're seeing. Looking at taginfo, there seem to be about ~1000 such relations, so it's not very common at the moment. A relation of Romanian embassies seems like it might be a case of relations are not categories, too. --Tordanik 20:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Status

I add a status column, because some relations like site are in discussion and it think it's better to advertise the mappers. For restriction, i don't found relation discussion in Proposed features/Conditional restrictions and in Relation:restriction

For boundary, multipolygon, street may be it's too old. And at this time procedure with proposal voting may not exist. --APP3L initiation (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The status is pretty cool, what do you think about putting the proposals into tables, too.
Type Status Description Comment
boundary segment unknown to group ways into a linear boundary usage: 0, superseded by type=multilinestring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: [1]. 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 fulfils 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.

type=relatedStreet is gone

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.

Any objections if I wipe out the relatedStreet entry from the table? --Werner2101 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing links to proposals that are not used or having issues

There are some proposals that are not used or having issues. In the first section for instance

Relations/Proposed/Composite Tag often used where an attribute is for time or vehicle class restricted
superseded by Conditional restrictions
Relations/Proposed/Segmented Tag is used if a tag or a set of tags shall be applied to a part (segment) of a way
superseded by splitting ways
Relations/Proposed/Collected Ways for grouping ways into complete streets, rivers, railways etc.
obsoleted
Relations/Proposed/Dual carriageways for grouping adjacent ways forming opposite carriageways of a dual carriageway
status abandoned?
Relations/Proposed/Circuit for marking specific circuits for e.g. motor sports
unclear status, link to feature page more useful?
Relations/Proposed/Street for grouping ways into complete streets, as well as associating other elements with it
This is already linked to on the top.
Relations/Proposed/Curvature for specifying the curve and straight parts of a way
This page was last updated 2013!
Relations/Proposed/boundary_segment to group ways into a linear boundary
Incomplete proposal linking to the feature description page.
Relations/Proposed/toll for toll zones such as the London Congestion Charge
Page does not even exist, we do not need to propose proposals here.

And this was just the first section. I would like to remove the outdated, obsoleted, and rejected features. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I didn't check those in detail except collected ways which should be replaced by multilinestring. --Fkv (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sets of objects

I've used type=set for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9498442 which is a series of nine related artworks, in close proximity. Is there a better type? Should we add "set" (or something equivalent) to the page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is type=site adequate in this case? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 20:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger with relation

I suggest that this page should be merged with Relation, that way all information specific to relations can be put in one place. Both pages are fairly short, especially if you exclude all of the proposed relation links, which are no longer relevant. Would anybody object to this change. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not mind if the content is one one page or on two. However, the change should be applied to all translations. I think that the proposals are still relevant in case someone wants to start a new proposal. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 11:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)