The "area=yes" option also works. People want to know that an AFZ exists. People will see the signs when they get there to determine if they can have alcohol on this side of the road or not. It is a level of accuracy that I am not sure is warranted by the creation of another polygon (which also makes editing difficult), hence the reason I suggested a relation. I am not beholded to 1 method over the other, it all comes down to consistency.
2010/1/1 John Smith <[email protected]> > 2010/1/1 Steve Bennett <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Craig Feuerherdt > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I know Bendigo has an 'alcohol free zone' which would be useful to > >> capture. > >> Initial thoughts are that it is best represented as a relation, made up > of > >> the ways (roads etc) that form the outer boundary. Just need to define a > new > >> relation 'type' (Alcohol Free Zone) and 'restriction' (alcohol?). > Start/end > >> times may also be a consideration in some places as well. And then, of > >> course, there is the rendering. > >> > > > > Why not just an "area=yes" closed way, that overlaps other ways where > > appropriate? Most of the edges of the zone will probably be existing > ways, > > like roads and parks, as noticed, but is that always the case? What's the > > benefit of a relation rather than an area...I guess the fact that you can > > have a multipolygon? > > I can understand that there is a similar benefit to having a single > set of ways and using them for multiple routes instead of trying to > use new ways to describe something, that said I'm still not sure if > this is the best way to describe alcohol free zones if they diverge on > a way, for example, only one side of the way is an alcohol free zone. >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
