On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not convinced that, say, a road should be mapped as *both* a way > and an area - I don't see any need for that.
If the road doesn't have a constant width you basically need an area. Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area? I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically be defining a way. > That said, in reality, features that are 2D *are* areas, and should > *eventually* be mapped as such in OSM. But I don't think there's any > rush. Using ways with width=* is a good, quick, interim solution. > Where you have the time, sure, go ahead and map areas. I agree. Even if you just map the area and don't put any tags on it (or put note=some textual description of what you just mapped). > I do think we will need some more discussion and documentation about > mapping areas - remember the debate about that keeps coming up, about > whether adjacent areas should share nodes? I didn't know that was up for debate. I thought the consensus was that they should not only share nodes, but they should share ways as well. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
