It seems logic to relate a formation to 1. an area, as in the formation is located in the area; 2. another formation, as in the formation is located on this other formation, e.g. a mountain's east face.
This relationship may manifest as another table in climb-db, similar to that of climb-belongs-to. Though, one difference is that a formation may reference another formation which raises the problem of "cycles." And cycles do not logically make sense in this model.
It seems logic to relate a formation to 1. an area, as in the formation is located in the area; 2. another formation, as in the formation is located on this other formation, e.g. a mountain's east face.
This relationship may manifest as another table in
climb-db, similar to that ofclimb-belongs-to. Though, one difference is that a formation may reference another formation which raises the problem of "cycles." And cycles do not logically make sense in this model.