> It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of the bridge to 0 Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely. In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not represented by areas. The question should be whether the value of the data is significantly degraded if some very short bridges are represented as nodes.
Mike On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>wrote: > > 2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. <[email protected]>: > > have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where >> a highway is going over a waterway: >> >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway >> >> We have been thinking about it for a while and it seems there is >> some demand which could justify it. >> > > > you mean, let's go a step back if we can't convince really everybody to > map according to the standards? ;-) > IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to > connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality disjunct (and then you will > "fix" it with a tag that explains that there is no connection). I do not > believe that this will make things easier, my guess is that inventing > exceptions like this will confuse mappers and blur the idea of our > topological model. > It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of > the bridge to 0. > > cheers, > Martin > > _______ > You call it brunnel, I'd call it tudge ;-) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
