On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ?
Ævar's example is interesting. Looks like somebody is doing some area- / micro- mapping in OSM as well. Open this in an editor to see all of the detail work. http://bestofosm.org/?type=mapnik&lon=11.42994&lat=51.30053&zoom=18 Some will look at this and say, "Too much! Impractical! We must map City $n first." Others will say, "Where is the detail? I don't see catch-basins. Where are the expansion joints in the sidewalk? No height tag for the curb; what shoddy work! That mapper hasn't drawn areas for the painted lines on the road!" Each of us will have a different perspective on how much detail is enough or too much. Why not show us your examples as Ævar and Mirko Küster have. I think that there are a number of interesting challenges ahead for area- / micro- mapping. And probably some breathtaking renderings. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
