On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Arlindo Pereira <[email protected]> wrote: > Hm, I don't think so. > > For instance, the area I'm mapping: > > http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-22.77&lon=-43.266&zoom=9&layers=B000FTF > > In Rio de Janeiro and Niterói (the two cities around the bay), the > residential highways very often (if not always) have sidewalks. > However, São Gonçalo and Maricá (east to the bay), this is not the > case. Here, on the brazilian urban cities, this configuration > apparently is linked to the financial condition of the citizens and > the city itself (apparently, the latter cities have poorer people, and > the government don't care to build sidewalks for them). > > So, I believe we have two choices: > > - Assuming that all residential ways have no sidewalk, which does not > necessarily match the reality; > - Assuming that all residential ways do have sidewalk, which also does > not necessarily match the reality;
I am unsure that there are only these choices ;-) > As mentioned, I believe it's better not mapping something that exists > then mapping something that does not exist. > > Maybe a solution could be if we mark all highways with is_in:city and > have that configuration city-wise (how?) Maybe mark that in the city node with: highway:residential:default:sidewalk = both What I dislike is that changing that value invalidates every sidewalk not mapped already because it matched the default :-/ -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
