On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> The real issue here is "what are we mapping" - and with the > intersection example, the issue seems to be whether the ways should > accurately correspond to geographic reality (_messy), or not > (_simple). > IMHO, it's quite simple: we probably want both, and we want to distinguish between them. Presumably in the history of the project, at first it was enough to simply say that two major intersections met. Then we began to mark slipways and split the two sides of the road. Then we're marking pedestrian crossings, traffict lights, turn restrictions, traffic islands etc. And we're trying to make all this work for routers, renderers and other tools, without giving them any hints. I don't think this can work. You need to give those tools some hints. In the simply/messy case, it seems to me that the extra curves are not "geographic reality" so much as they're "routing reality" or something. They just correspond to paint and signs, right? Would you ever render them? Well, a little extra tag distinguishing them from the main road, which definitely needs to be rendered, would be appropriate. <prepares for deluge of "no tagging for the renderer/router"> Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
