Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice gratefully received. There seems to be a clear majority preference for option (b) - the more detailed approach that avoids superimposing boundaries of areas (and their nodes) on an adjacent way (and its nodes). I fully understand the two caveats:
1. It is only worth being precise if there is precise data available. 2. There are a few exceptions where, for example, the character of the adjacent area has access features more like that of a normal linear way - the pedestrian area is a good example. I am persuaded that the advantages of forward compatibility and a higher standard of mapping justify my small efforts (where I have good GPS data) in separating out superimposed areas/ways and using option (b). I am particularly pleased to receive support for splitting single large landuse areas (e.g. =residential or =farm) that cross large numbers of ways. It is a minor irritant and I didn't want to do the work - or mess with other people's mapping - without a bit of a 'reality check' with more experienced folk in the community. Thanks again Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52 > To: Marc Schütz > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways > > 2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" <[email protected]>: > >> 2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" <[email protected]>: > >> >> 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. > >> > >> it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas > are merged though. > > > > Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long > time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing > easier is not a good thing. > > +1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to > the center of the 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-- > >> > >> which objects are you referring to? parkings usually have > those ways > >> (for crossing the sidewalk) so they won't be artificial, and > >> pedestrian areas are the exception I mentioned above. > > > > Look at the google sat image: > > > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=de&geocode=&q=bayreuth&s > > > ll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.856937,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bayr > > > euth,+Bayern,+Deutschland&ll=49.946316,11.577148&spn=0.000754,0.001635 > > &t=k&z=20 > > That's the mentioned pedestrian area. I agree with you here. > > > Mapping it the way it is done there does not really make > sense: Either the exact geometry is important for you, then > you should convert both the plaza and the road to areas. Or > it isn't, but then there shouldn't be a problem with > extending the plaza so that it borders to the road. > > +1. but that's still pedestrian areas / highway areas. In these cases > the areas _do_ connect to the road. > > cheers, > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
