On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM, James Ewen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Actually, it was promoted to secondary due to the fact that the whole >> thing is a major enough road that it needed to be visually distinguished >> from more minor city ways and properly reflect it's status as an >> important connection between 99E, 22 and 213. > > "Visually distinguished" in the database? Sounds like the tag is being > selected based on trying to get the rendered image to depict the area > in a manner that would be useful to the map user.
I think he meant, visibly / noticeably distinguished. The selection of a highway tag has a noticeable impact on a road feature's meaning, and as a result, its visual appearance in most renderings. > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:22 PM, David ``Smith'' <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Anyway, your explanation satisfies me. With that in mind, I would >> suggest promoting to secondary a little bit more of it at the ends: >> north to OR 99E / Portland Rd NE, and south to the southernmost trunk >> links to OR 22 / Santiam Expressway. (<http://osm.org/go/TdXV2vRe> >> <http://osm.org/go/TdXUoDMr>) That would make things a bit neater >> looking. > > That wouldn't be a suggestion to "tag for the renderer", would it? The > data looks pretty "neat" in the database already... tidy little > numbers and letters all in the right spots and all. You might say "neater looking" is the visual manifestation of a road network that makes sense. When there are many gaps and isolated stretches of a given highway class, it not only looks sloppy, but it's difficult to form a solid idea of how the roads actually function. > It sure sounds like we are all trying to work towards a common goal, > which is creating a map database that would contain data stored in a > manner that would allow another user to interpret the stored data in a > manner that can be easily consumed and understood. Isn't that the main point of a map? If we've accomplished that, then visual representations of the map should look good. And tactile representations should feel good. And aural representations -- haven't really been figured out yet, but you get the point. Wouldn't it be nice to have maps which sound good, smell good, and taste good? -- David "Smith" a.k.a. Vid the Kid a.k.a. Bír'd'in Does this font make me look fat? _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
