3 ms·
I certainly agree it wouldn't have grown as big as it is with a less pragmatic approach. Entirely. But there must be a moment when some simplicity or pragmatis
by berkes 4y ago
I certainly agree it wouldn't have grown as big as it is with a less pragmatic approach. Entirely.
But there must be a moment when some simplicity or pragmatism must be exchanged for scalability.
Layering is one option. While indeed railroads and roads probably want to be on the same layer, opening hours or pavement need not be.
I'm not saying a node may only ever be on one layer. They can easily be duplicated over layers. Just like at boundaries of geographical chunks, (i.e. over the borders of luxembourg.osm.pbf) there are (tens) of thousands of nodes that also appear in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands once even.
- pietervdvn 4y agoThis 'splitting up in layers' gets done by third-parties, such as geofabrik. Geodata is more complicated then just 'layering' everything. Also, making an entire ecosystem change is a huge effort
- berkes 4y agoI know and I agree. But "making an entire ecosystem change being a huge effort" does not prove that it's unnecessary. It just says that it is hard. I've never seen the OSM community back away from projects because they are "hard". And the moment this community starts doing that, it can just as well abolish oneself, IMO.