Steve > NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the 'correct' > way of mapping! > > That's rather an extreme point of view. No professionally produced maps > contain "everything". Nor do the databases from which they are derived. > "Everything" is not achievable, so let's not aim for it. Instead, let's > work out what we value most of all, set some priorities, and focus our > efforts accordingly.
Eventually it would be nice to be able to correctly use areas for every feature that actually covers an area. Rivers, parks and the like already are but can also be accessed as a single 'reference' at a higher level. There is no real dispute BETWEEN A and B, but it must be possible to view the data either at the B level ... a connection between X and Y which you can cycle down ... and the A level where the widths are displayed accurately so one can see if one can cycle 2 or more abreast. Complex tags can be added to 'B' to provide the width, distance for some other way and the like, but that is no substitute for actually mapping the information on the ground. So really all that is required a relation between the A and B views of the world? -- 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
