On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 18:03 +0100, Rory McCann wrote: > Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > > I'd vote for complete=no, and rendering it with an arrow on the > > unconnected end of the way. Sometimes, e.g. if you pass under a bridge, > > but haven't gone back to pass over it, you may have a way with arrows on > > both ends. That is fine. I'd allow and render towards=[name of place], > > but that get's confusing in the 2 ended passing under a bridge case. > > I agree, complete=no makes sense. But what should this be applied to? > Nodes? Ways? I suggest it should be added to a node that's at the end of > a way to signafy that the way continues alone roughly the same direction > as it was going. I think it should be rendered as a a few dots in the > same direction and the same colour and thickness as the original way. > > Thoughts?
Tagging nodes as complete=no seems a little strange to me unless it refers to a POI. After all it's the way that is incomplete not the node. How would you interpret a node tagged as complete=no that is shared between multiple ways? Personally, I've been mapping with complete=no on the way and adding extra details using the note tag where appropriate. Regards, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
