Stephen Hope wrote: > Says who? The boundary of the forest IS the road. :) > > This is one of religious discussions - both sides KNOW they are right, > and no amount of discussion is going to change things. Unless we have > a central decision making force of some sort lay down the law, (in OSM > - hah!) you'll continue to see things mapped both ways.
>> the "boundary of the forrest run in parallel to the road" is actually >> the correct way to do it. Yep - BOTH statements are right - but it depends on your context. UNTIL roads actually have width, then the "boundary of the forest runs in parallel to the road" is correct since the road has width beyond it's way, and since around here woodland areas have differing widths of grass verge between the dry stone wall or other boundary and the road surface, then the woodland boundary needs to be a different way to the 'nominal' centre of the road provided by the route way. So even the nodes are not common? With the increasing use of the data FOR micro-mapping - and I include the cycleway maps in that - some means of identifying the real geometry of the road surface is becoming more essential. Forest is going to be in a different position adjacent to a 6 line motorway as against a two lane one, and when laying out pathways inside the forest, a 20 foot wide bridal way/fire break is different to an 18 inch wide footpath. And for orienteering maps THAT detail can be critical - and OSM may be the only way of producing up to date maps for those types of sport? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
