On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > > The footways along Duoro Road and Harbour Street (but not the one > between them!) do not carry any information IMHO
I disagree. They indicate that there is a footway there. If it's a verifiable fact, IMHO it rightly belongs in the OSM database. > but clutter the map > display, especially on GPS units. With three times as much nodes per > meter of the street(the actual road + 2 footways), data processing and > editing is getting ever more resource hungry. This, on the other hand, may well be true. But IMHO this is NOT a reason to limit what gets entered into the OSM database, but simply to *pre-process* the OSM data (filtering out unwanted details as desired) prior to loading onto the GPS unit. > For pedestrian routing, the same information can be represented by > adding pavement=left/right/both (I think there was a proposed tag, but I > can't find it on the map features page) to the highway and > highway=crossing at the crossing nodes (where currently there are > mapping errors, because the footways and highways are not connected). > What is lost, is precision of the map display at the meter-scale, i.e. > at the scale of GPS accuracy. This argument comes up now and then. The conclusion is always: each to their own. But please don't remove explicitly mapped ways and replace them with tags if the ways are already correct. > I don't think there is any tag that currently renders. One might imagine > having a wider border of the road on the side of the pavement, in the > correct color (footway/cycleway/path). This even has the advantage that > the pavement remains visible on smaller zoom levels, where in 1:1 > mapping, the overwide drawing of the roads usually hides it. > IIRC there was a proposed implementation for osmarender doing sth. along > these lines a while ago. This is a separate issue. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
