On 1/30/10 9:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Roy Wallace<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sure, but what about mapping the way *as an area*, e.g. if you want to >> accurately trace over wide vs. narrow parts of the track? I remember >> this came up a little while ago in the context of "should all highways >> be mapped as areas", but I'm not sure if there were any tagging >> guidelines produced as an outcome of that... it is just a matter of >> adding area=yes? >> > Race tracks are probably well suited to mapping as areas rather than > simple highways, both because there's more to map (they're very wide, > but as you point out, vary in width a lot), but also because they > don't need to be routed on (pretty unlikely anyone is going to try and > navigate one with a gps). > > In other words, mapping with area=yes will probably produce a better > result in renderers and a worse result in routers, and in this case, > that's probably a good thing. > they are also unidirectional (with rare exceptions), and not all possible physical configurations necessarily are used. none of these factors can be represented with a multipolygon based approach.
richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
