On 12/05/2008 20:02, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > 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.
I wasn't being entirely serious. I think it is terribly hard to know whether you have all the footpaths, and I think we'd hardly ever mark anywhere "complete" if we did that. So I think Inge is right - we need different measures for our own use. But on the public map, all streets with names seems a pretty good achievable and useful thing to show. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
