On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Lester Caine <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Camp one is - single way with lanes=4 + bridge section >>> Camp two would prefer all elements mapped in which case the bridge WOULD >>> be a separate element. >> >> Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a >> "bridge" relation to indicate they share a common bridge. This could >> probably be seen as a compromise, and is (I think) a good interim >> solution, if not a very-long-term solution. > > That is simply camp two ... > The bridge relation would have to have a physical presence at some point!
In that case, just to clarify, I meant Camp 2a) All elements mapped with the bridge as a *separate* element (e.g. an area, not a relation) Camp 2b) All elements mapped with the bridge as a grouping of elements (a relation, including the ways on the bridge and optionally the area indicating the bridge surface, etc.) These are both covered by http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels > The point I am trying to make is that the two camps HAVE to co-exist. > What we are looking for is a way to 'rough in' the data, and provide a > macro level view of things, and then add the NECESSARY detail below that > so that micro mapping can simply be added to the macro model. Agreed. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
