Sebastian Spaeth schrieb:
this is what you say. I say sharing nodes of the forest and the road
is actually the correct way to do it.
In the beginning, I thought the same. Now I keep the node separate.
It is just too cumbersome if you have to separate them later on. And
you often have too.
Stephen Gower schrieb:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area on
the ground and mostly be kept clear of roadways. Placing an Area's Nodes
near the adjacent Way's nodes helps make the
Jannis Achstetter wrote:
Sent: 14 May 2008 8:05 AM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] area topology
Stephen Gower schrieb:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists)
wrote:
I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area
Stephen Gower wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
A road is represented by a single way. Although the way has zero
width in the database, it represents the whole width of the
carriageway (pavement) and well as the pavement
On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:25:39 +0200 Raphaël Jacquot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
the boundary of the forrest run in parallel to the road is actually
the correct way to do it.
this is what you say. I say sharing nodes of the forest and the road
is actually the correct way to do it. Why can't people
Please excuse me if this is a FAQ, I just didn't find an answer in the
wiki (possibly because it is obvious) ...
In topological GISses like grass, borders are shared between adjacent
(vector) areas. However, I wonder how adjacent areas should be digitized
in OSM (let's say, forests and
Ulf Mehlig wrote:
I think that using a street as a border of a plaza (or a block of
buildings) is not wanted. Does one digitize double ways, leading along
the same nodes, or does one make a separate area in a small distance to
the existing line (street/stream), which might be topologically
On 13 May 2008, at 14:06, Ulf Mehlig wrote:
Please excuse me if this is a FAQ, I just didn't find an answer in the
wiki (possibly because it is obvious) ...
In topological GISses like grass, borders are shared between adjacent
(vector) areas. However, I wonder how adjacent areas should be
Hi,
Am I right in assuming that OSM ways always belong
to one single area?
Yes and no.
Normally we don't map the borders between areas - we map tha areas
themselves. So you would have one way that encloses the forest, and
one way that encloses the adjacent farmland, and they would meet
Shaun McDonald wrote:
If you have a road and stream running parallel they would be entered
as 2 ways that are parallel. The same happens for the carriageways of
a motorway that are separated by a barrier.
Well, let's say that this is also controversial and we had that
discussion before.
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
I subscribe to the view that areas should correspond to the real area on
the ground and mostly be kept clear of roadways. Placing an Area's Nodes
near the adjacent Way's nodes helps make the map easier to maintain.
Hi,
The issue is especially contended when it comes to linear features
straddling areas, like a road that forms the forest boundary for a
bit. I would re-use the same nodes here, but there are people who say
that this would indicate the forest stretching up to the road
centreline
Christoph Eckert wrote:
Hi,
The issue is especially contended when it comes to linear features
straddling areas, like a road that forms the forest boundary for a
bit. I would re-use the same nodes here, but there are people who say
that this would indicate the forest stretching up to
Says who? The boundary of the forest IS the road. :)
This is one of religious discussions - both sides KNOW they are right,
and no amount of discussion is going to change things. Unless we have
a central decision making force of some sort lay down the law, (in OSM
- hah!) you'll continue to
14 matches
Mail list logo
