On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:58:36PM +0200, Lambert Carsten wrote: > > That often leads to inconsistencies, but > > inconsistent is not necessarily bad. > Exactly, no need to 'force' junctions to have connecting roads on the same > layer. If you really believe in the 'middle of the junction theory' let us be > inconsistent with that one and help mappers clean up real issues rather than > adding titsy bits of road between junctions and bridges.
I didn't say anything about "titsy bits". If you only add this to work around the Keepright message, that doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense to add a non-bridge part of the way, if it actually is large enough to make a difference when rendering. > > And if we get better software or more > > detailed data or want to support new uses, we'll change things around. > > Can we agree on getting rid of the "Right" and especially "Wrong" texts that > deal with this issue in the Map Features and give some advice like: > "Often bridges/tunnels will not connect directly to a junction in which case > you should/can (?) add a piece of road connecting the two." ? The page could definitely have a more thorough description of the problems with either way of mapping and give some advice, when each makes sense. Feel free to add this. Your sentence above sounds like a good start to me. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
