Frederik Ramm escribió:
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:23, Ed Loach wrote:
I would agree, and if Frederik does want to tag roads as areas he
could use the width= and/or est_width= tags, although it is unlikely
that the renderers use them, assuming that the widths they currently
render are based on just the highway= value and doesn't take into
account any width tags (though I may be wrong).
Well I don't necessarily want to tag roads as areas, I just want to
map the fact that something (e.g. a forest) extends exactly up to the
road. If the road is 0 metres wide (or "as wide as the renderer wants
it to be"), then the only way to map this is to re-use the road
centreline as a forest border. If the road had a left and right
shoulder line then I could use that to delineate the forest border.
It all boils down to whether the forest border and the road are
independent of each other or whether you simply wanted to express
"the forest stops at the road" (which is often the case for landuse
or administrative areas, less often for forests).
Bye
Frederik
in my opinion a more practical aproach is better.
i think they must be independent because is easier to edit and correct
in the future.
a road around a forest can share nodes or the way can be tagged with
bouth things, but if i buy land close to the road and take out the trees
to build a house its easyer to edit just the landuse. so i would not do
any of the cases.
with JOSM i can zoom and put very close independent paths not touching
each other making them practicaly coincident.
the only case ill bother about what distance to draw it is if the
barrier=fence finally gets aproved because maybe the road wich renders
over the landuse will hide the fence if its to close to it.
but again is up to each render the width of the road and if it renders
differet width upon the number of lanes, there is even less control.
sergio
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
