On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Shaun McDonald wrote: > On 12 Feb 2010, at 06:17, ed...@billiau.net wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:57 PM, <ed...@billiau.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Stefan Pflumm wrote: > >>>>> this ways are all highways. > >>>> > >>>> It surely is unusual for two highways sharing the same nodes, and I > >>>> cannot think of an example where this would make sense. But that > >>> > >>> doesn't > >>> > >>>> mean there is none; can you give an example? > >>>> > >>>> Bye > >>>> Frederik > >>> > >>> Double-decker bridge > >> > >> The ways should not share nodes, because the ways don't intersect. > > > > That is exactly why the duplicated nodes should not be merged. They > > 'appear' to share the same node, because we are not differentiating > > according to height in the database. > > Why not offset the nodes a little to make them easier to work with and be > able to see that there is two ways there? > > Shaun >
I don't see any problem with your suggestion. We started discussing what would be valid reasons for "duplicate nodes" which should not be merged. So many of these thoughts are theoretical cases. We have certainly decided that care is required with the duplicate node finding tool, and some brainpower should be applied to see if the nodes are 'duplicates' or simply shared. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
