On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM, David Earl <[email protected]> wrote: > > It shows visually which the "main" road is at the junction and is a good > model of the physical arrangement.
IMHO it does not *explicitly* show the "continuations of roads at the junction". And even if you do think it works "visually", that is not sufficient - there are many uses for OSM data. >> b) it makes a single *way* continue through the intersection. > > err, no. If the road has the same name around the corner it can do. If the > minor but straight on road has the same name it could be a continuous way, > but I would normally break it at that point, not least so the name of the > "minor" road is clear. But where ways break is of no significance - you have > to break ways at all sorts of places because of changes in the environment > like speed limits, starts of bridges etc. Ah, so are you saying that, in Martin's attached image, the red way and the yellow way should/could meet at the junction? If so, then IMHO it is even *less* clear that, e.g. traveling from the red to the grey way is a left turn, whereas traveling from the red way to the yellow way is uninterrupted..... > I think anyone looking at it would understand the arrangement on the ground, > and it does model the situation as I see it. Don't be fooled - people are not the only ones that "look" at OSM data. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
