Hi, My view (I'll try to be concise). Being able to map both abstractions (like a schematic route) and physical details is a real problem. We need to be able to do both. The problem is not unique to rail. Use cases I've thought of: - roads (the road network, vs the individual bits of tarmac) - rail (the line vs the bits of track) - power (the power grid vs every individual power line) - traffic lights ("this intersection has traffic lights" vs each individual physical traffic light) - universities, hospitals, precincts (the campus as a whole, rather than the individual plots of land near each other) - bike parking (space for 20 bikes here vs 10 individual bike hoops) - car parking (space for 200 cars here vs several individual parking areas) - bike routes (the route follows the river, vs the two individual tracks on each bank)
The point is: it's hard to make beautiful maps without mapping the abstractions. The physical detail looks ok at high zoom levels, but when you're zoomed out, it's messy - and it's really not easy to automatically generate these kinds of abstractions. It would be really good to have a single, consistent approach (including terminology) for this "multiple levels of abstraction" problem. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging