On Monday 12 May 2008 15:36:35 Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: > | On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Jeffrey Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > |> Did we ever decide what to do when a road continues but > |> we didn't continue down the road? > | > | I can't speak for the other 33,000 contributors, but I (and a few > | others I know of) simply use isolated nodes as a kind of ellipsis. > | > | *----*----* * * * > | > | It's quick and fairly obvious to the next mapper, but not exactly > > bulletproof. > > > It's cute, but not easily searchable, unless you want to tag the 3 nodes > with something (which would be a really bad idea); it's had to render > from (unless you want the ellipsis style rendering, and can cope with > rendering all unconnected untagged nodes, and don't care that the size > of ellipsis is dependant on zoom level). > > So we have a choice of: > > FIXME=incomplete > fixme=Road continues > name=[whatever] (tbc) > towards=[name of place] > complete=no > > Personally I think that FIXME should be a free text description, so I'm > not in favour of the first 2 as something to base rendering on. > > I really don't like adding semantic stuff to the name tag - what if you > don't collect the name, or the road doesn't have a name? What if there > is a real road out there somewhere that actually has (tbc) in it's name? > > I really love the illustrated rendering of towards=, but I might not > know where the road goes, just that it starts here. > > I'd vote for complete=no, and rendering it with an arrow on the > unconnected end of the way. Sometimes, e.g. if you pass under a bridge, > but haven't gone back to pass over it, you may have a way with arrows on > both ends. That is fine. I'd allow and render towards=[name of place], > but that get's confusing in the 2 ended passing under a bridge case.
This sounds a very sensible way of doing it. I've seen all variations on (in)complete=yes/not/true/false so it would be nice to cater for all of them though I agree that complete=no is probably the best. So any unconnected end of a road tagged with this would have an arrow or perhaps the last segment on the unconnected end could be rendered with a dashed style. It should be obvious to person looking at a map of, say, a town centre that those short roads coming off the high street aren't necessarily short but simply aren't completely mapped yet. This shall have to be documented as to exactly what the complete tag means since I wouldn't be surprised if some people are using it simply as a form of FIXME, as a reminder to themselves that _some_ aspect of the road hasn't been mapped completely yet (e.g. specific taggings) rather than the specific meaning we're applying to it now. The most sensible place would probably be http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:complete. Matt Williams
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
