( Forgot to FIX the address :( Another crap practice in OSM! ) Richard Bullock wrote: > The principle we have used in the past is where it is not physically > possible to cross between two carriageways without leaving the road surface > then mark it as two separate ways. I've not seen a compelling argument > against continuing this practice. The only argument I've seen from you is > essentially, "it's boring - it takes far too long" - which I don't really > agree with. Dual carriageways all over the world are mapped like this on OSM > (and it seems Google, Yahoo and I'm sure others do as well).
And that is what I would agree is the FIRST choice for mapping any divided structure. You do not bodge the detail so that it renders correctly, the rendering needs fixing if it is not displayed properly. Trying to add more tags for situations that ARE already covered by normal mapping practice is wrong. Adding a tag to cover details that ARE missing is right. So the current proposal is only acceptable where no physical barrier exists - and therefore the description is wrong. ( And adding footways properly where pedestrians are kept separate from vehicles also requires additional ways. Simply adding yet more tags for something which is not part of the actual roadway is another 'macro' bodge which in reality requires at least a separate way ... ) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
