2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" <schue...@gmx.net>: >> But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone >> with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as >> b) > > Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether > they want to use a way or an area for a road.
it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas are merged though. > But with option (b) and a linear way you would have a gap next to the road. > In the case of landuse, this is not a problem in practice, but if there is a > place, there you need to insert artificial ways that are not there in > reality, just to get the connectivity between the two objects: > http://osm.org/go/0JUKytHID-- which objects are you referring to? parkings usually have those ways (for crossing the sidewalk) so they won't be artificial, and pedestrian areas are the exception I mentioned above. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
