Richard Welty wrote: > there are two different things that can be modelled here: > > 1) physical location of traffic lights. > > 2) the location/lanes of traffic controlled by the lights. > > modeling physical location conforms to a very literal definition of mapping. > modeling the traffic control conforms to a more logical definition.
You seem to be saying that 'literal' & 'logical' are mutually exclusive. I'm not sure that's true. The literal way can be the logical way. > a > sophisticated > routing algorithm could use logical modeling to refine a route. it would > find > physical mapping useless as there is not enough information. I disagree with this - accurate physical mapping provides more info. If routing can't deal with that data, that's not the fault of the data. > the only way to > make physical mapping useful to a routing algorithm is to add enough > information to allow the logical control to be inferred, and by the time > you've > done that, what you've really done is modeled both. > > so you need to think about why you're modeling traffic control devices in > order to make the choice. is it about really nice physical rendering, or are > there perhaps other customers for the data besides renderers, say, routing > algorithms to name the most obvious one? > I'm not mapping for either. I'm mapping to provide accurate data for whoever can make use of it. I realise what I've mapped is not perfect but it's more accurate than before. I keep being told OSM is a database not a map & if something is physical it can be mapped. I think I agree with both of those. Cheers Dave F. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
