On 12/03/10 09:52, Steve Bennett wrote: > At the cost of managing that extra information. So far, I haven't seen > much evidence that we have ways of aggregating excess information into > more manageable chunks. > > Put it this way: how would you render a single circle for any > intersection that has a traffic light? That is, if there are traffic > light nodes at one intersection, you still only want to render one > circle. It's a pretty obvious use case.
Other than de-cluttering (which tends to be done automatically anyway) I'm not sure why you'd want to render only one set of lights if there were more than that. But you could always limit the number to one for any given radius of a crossing or close group of crossings. > How would you count the number of traffic lights along a given route? > The scheme that's been described here would return double the actual > number. Consider divided roads crossing, where you'd presumably put 4 sets of lights on your scheme (at least that's how I inevitably see it being done in OSM). In this case, placing the lights accurately in their lane gives the correct count whereas it's your system which doubles up the number! > I'm not saying extra information isn't sometimes a good thing, but the > task of simplifying that down to a useful set of information isn't > trivial. Why do you think anyone needs to? > Perhaps we want to distinguish between an "intersection with lights" > node and an "actual traffic light" node. Whether on not an intersection has lights for a particular vehicle often depends on the exact roure taken through that intersection. To oversimplify can often be to mislead. John H _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
