I understand your point. Nevertheless, using a compass + indicating direction=* will be more precise and exact than drawing the box according to aerial pictures (often according where you think the box is) Same for length=* or any other physical properties.
I've no problem with hardcore micromapping. OSM is a meaningful project for that. But sometimes, the precision and scale issues force us tu use simpler primitives. *François Lacombe* fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux <http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux> 2015-01-28 10:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>: > > 2015-01-28 9:13 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe <[email protected]>: > >> Some small features can actually be summarized as nodes when drawing >> their shape sounds irrelevant regarding the cluttering it introduces. >> >> I'm sorry that was trivial for me. >> I won't draw a circle for a 5cm diameter pole and so on... >> >> >> > > > while for a pole (especially a quite small one) geometry does indeed not > give you a great gain, it does provide additional information for other > small shapes even if they are on the limit of what we can represent, e.g. a > telephone booth, a bench, a street cabinet, etc., because the geometry > gives you orientation information and also other positioning information > relative to close by objects (e.g. adjacent or with a gap, in line or > shifted) and allows for further details like the position of the > door/entrance, etc. > > I admit this is hardcore micromapping and mostly I don't do it like this > myself but use a node, just wanted to point out that there are situations > where more detailed geometry does make sense also in the case of tiny > objects. > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
