David Earl wrote: >Sent: 12 May 2008 7:10 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide >"completeness" tools > >On 12/05/2008 18:06, Inge Wallin wrote: >> On Monday 12 May 2008 18:06:59 Chris Morley wrote: >> >>> Starting with a single level of completeness makes sense, but I think it >>> should be public roads, named where feasible. >> >> I have a different view. I think we should have a leveled scheme from >the >> beginning. I suggest the following: >> >> Level 1: All the highways (using OSM lingo) usable by cars within an area >are >> mapped >> Level 2: All highways are mapped and named >> Level 3: All highways down to cycleways are mapped (and named if >feasible). > >That's a very car-centric view of the world. Why "down" to cycleways? >Who are you to say something usable by a car is more important than >something usable by a bike?
I was actually going to argue that even the footways should be on. That's why I was going for the tile approach because I felt that building up from little pieces was more logical that an all encompassing area. If you have a few footpaths in your area not completed then its not really complete, whereas small tile can be "signed off" and holes wouldn't matter, they would just get filled in later as you or someone else gets to them. Cheers Andy > >David > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date: >11/05/2008 1:08 PM _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
