Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we go for it now ?
Mapping the crossing of two roads, four cycleways and four sidewalks all as surfaces requires about twenty times as many nodes as mapping the crossing of two linear roads. That is a hefty increase in complexity, especially when having to deal with the modification of existing ways. Should that be put forward as a best practice ? When dealing with pedestrian plazas and their surroundings, the value added by area mapping makes it worthwhile, but for more standard street grids I'm not sure if that should be a priority. My geeky nitpicky self makes me want to do it, but maybe I should focus my energy somewhere else where it would be more useful. And maintaining that complexity may be more costly than what we have now. So what is your opinion ? Generalized area mapping is the future, but should we wholeheartedly embrace it right now or wait for more sophisticated tools for maintaining it and a clearer "business case" ? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
