2012/12/8 Martin Vonwald <[email protected]>: > currently used tagging styles and added my solution. I would like to > ask you to have a look at the following images and tell me if you > understand what's going on. Please don't comment on the underlying > tagging styles - I randomly selected some I know (and may or may not > support them). > > http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_1.jpeg > http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_2.jpeg > http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_3.jpeg > http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_4.jpeg
I think this is confusing, but this is just because this mapping style is not introduced and if there were good arguments I think we could get used to it. I also think that some are not very good examples because they could be better in the geometric detail, for instance this one: http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_1.jpeg I'd expect to see this represented by a way that goes straight and has a crossing (or exit link) turning slightly to the right, instead in the example it seems as if there is a "V"-crossing with the leftern (straight) part more inclined than the actually turning one (link). As for your triangles: if we should choose to represent these situations (bifurcations of carriageways) in a way similar to these examples they should still not be areas (or closed ways). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
