On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> From the point of view of a map, a road really >> is a line...that happens to have some width and shape. Mapping it as >> an area makes it primarily a chunk of asphalt...that you happen to be >> able to drive along to get somewhere. > > Hmm...I think these are *both* valid interpretations of a road. I > don't think it's a strong argument against mapping areas explicitly.
I think it's a strong argument for scale-dependent mapping of areas vs. ways. Both are valid interpretations, but not on the same view of a map. I think having a variety of data sets would help here. >> The ideal situation would probably be to have users be able to enter >> either ways or areas, and have the server software understand the >> relationship between them, and convert between them. > > Agreed. The issue remains of whether the server should convert > everything to 1) "split ways with width tags, implying linear > interpolation between segments with different widths" or 2) "a way and > an area, possibly linked with a relation". I prefer the second, as it > more clearly encapsulates the two aspects of a road that you have > pointed out above: 1) a line you drive along and 2) a chunk of > asphalt. This muddles too many needs into a single data set, and the idea of the server converting things could introduce a lot of problems. I agree that the road can be two things, but I don't think it can be those two things at once. -mike. ---------------------------------------------------------------- michal migurski- [email protected] 415.558.1610 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
