Designatory grouping relationships

Posted by Govanus on 9 October 2013 in English (English)

I've been trying to find and then complete a way to describe a set of designations made of nested groups of sub members (that look like private address schemes) that apply to geographically identifiable places (for instance rooms, buildings, blocks and out-houses. I aimed to find away that I could avoid repeating the designation in each way or node, so a relation was the natural solution: in addition I wanted to be able to tag a whole group at different levels to give relevant thematic information relating to only that subgroup.

I also was keen to allow software to comprehend automatically the structure and all relations between the groups their levels and descriptive tags, in such a way that it automatically matched easily with owner supplied data and possible streaming (possibly private) that they could use to make automatic overlays(or slippery map layers) on there website in future. An attractive benefit when promoting its adoption over the current weaker Google based offering. Matching this with simple totally custom automated rendering when needed also adds to the potential appeal.

Nested Relationships solve this neatly fit all requirements and can be made to fit the current schema neatly. I therefore will look to make a proposal for wider adoption for places with similar needs. It is noted that renderers and other software is unlikely to become confused with this unknown type of relationship as most relationships are currently only selectively processed by programs made to look for special types they use: so I expect that uninterested software will ignore the new relations while the new (local) software written to support them will use them instead.

Location: Lye Valley, Oxford, Oxfordshire, South East, England, OX3 7EZ, United Kingdom

Comment from Pieren on 10 October 2013 at 09:41

You seem to ignore the warning about 'type=collection' in the wiki:

For your needs, you could use a simple relation of 'type=site':


Comment from Govanus on 10 October 2013 at 18:33

Thankyou fo that advice I chose from the list in id without a full background check I think the ist was smaller than allwed tags nd it's the first time I managed to really make it all work. So I'll swap them over now.

Comment from Govanus on 10 October 2013 at 18:47

fixed it. I also found site in the list too. I found it very easy to edit with the relationships in id now so I'm very happy selecting large dispersed logical blocks to amend tags too. and visualise the relationships. Now I just have to finish the city for it all to make more sense. Thanks again Pieren.

Login to leave a comment