> > For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is > the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area. > In both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire > road (i.e. not only the middle line). Because in reality, there is no gap > between the road and the areas next to it, there shouldn't be one in the > database either. > > > > In other words, we should keep the topology intact, even if we choose > to simplify the geometry. > > This would be hard to do properly render in the renderers, as they > will render the road with non-zero width and to render things > correctly, they should "push" the boundaries of touching landuses so > they will touch the rendered road borders. > > It is IMHO easier to learn renderers to support proper width tag and > add that tag to the street between. > > With proper micro-mapping, even the street between could be mapped as > an area, but that could be perhaps a bit too much of detail. > > But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone > with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as > b)
Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether they want to use a way or an area for a road. But with option (b) and a linear way you would have a gap next to the road. In the case of landuse, this is not a problem in practice, but if there is a place, there you need to insert artificial ways that are not there in reality, just to get the connectivity between the two objects: http://osm.org/go/0JUKytHID-- -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
