[gdal-dev] osm_id vs osm_way_id?

[Djordje Spasic]

Hi Jukka,
As always thank you for the useful share of knowledge!!

> IDs are unique only for nodes/ways/relations but not across the elements. I
do not think that renaming osm_id into relation_id (and probably osm_id of
points into node_id, or?) and osm_way_id into way_id to follow the native
model would make things very much more clear.

I was only questioning why can't "osm_way_id" be renamed to "osm_relation_id". The "osm_id" would remain the same.
Of course I am not a developer, I was just thinking out loud, and hopping that somebody might explain to me, why is there the "osm_way_id" key.
I could totally be wrong.

All three examples you've sent me:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node/389960161
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/34028339 http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/125519

Show the id of three different elements: An id of a node, of a way, and of a relation.

What makes it confusing (at least to me) is why did developers of the GDAL OSM driver decided to use a separate key(field) to depict the closed ways?

I understand that and ESRI shapefile can not differentiate between a closed way and a relation (for example: a relation consisted of two closed ways). So they had to "group" both closed ways and relation into a single shapefile geometry type (multi)polygons/polylines. But still, if they wanted to differentiate between these two elements, it's more logical (at least to me) that a relation should have gotten a separate key(field), instead of a close way. A relation is higher in the hierarchy of OSM elements, and can contain different elements (a node and a way, three ways, fours nodes...).

I am just thinking out loud, nothing more.I can definitively be wrong, and I am eager to learn more about the OSM in general.

 
----------------------------
    On Thursday, December 1, 2016 11:03 PM, jratike80 <jukka.rahkonen at maanmittauslaitos.fi> wrote:
 

 georges wrote
> Hello,
> I am converting an .osm file to shapefile, and there is one thing that I
> do not understand:
> 
> What is the difference between: osm_id and osm_way_id fields (keys)?
> 
> They are defined in osmconf.ini file, but only for [multipolygons].
> Here is an explanation from the osmconf.ini file:
> 
> # note: for multipolygons, osm_id=yes instanciates a osm_id field for the
> id of relations
> # and a osm_way_id field for the id of closed ways. Both fields are
> exclusively set.
> Does that mean that osm_way_id will be used to represent the osm id number
> of a closed way, while osm_id will only be used for to represent the osm
> id number of relations?
> 
> It's a bit confusing concept.
> 
> What makes the closed ways so special so that they need to have their own
> special field (osm_way_id)?
> Why wasn't there a separate field for relations instead: like:
> osm_relation_id, while closed ways would use the osm_id.
> 
> Thank you for the reply.

Indeed, OSM data model is a bit confusing concept. You can read about it
from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Elements. Simple, small polygons
are usually modeled as a one continuous, closed ring. That makes one "way"
and the ID for it is found from way_id. All the other polygons are modeled
as relations which are collections of ways and they have "relation_id" in
the data as you can see

node_id http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node/389960161
way_id  http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/34028339
relation_id http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/125519

IDs are unique only for nodes/ways/relations but not across the elements. I
do not think that renaming osm_id into relation_id (and probably osm_id of
points into node_id, or?) and osm_way_id into way_id to follow the native
model would make things very much more clear.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

--
View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/gdal-dev-osm-id-vs-osm-way-id-tp5298287p5298304.html
Sent from the GDAL - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20161202/4560f0b6/attachment.html>