2010/1/2 Lester Caine <[email protected]> > Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are mapped - or > prevent > adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually physically form > part of > the 'accompanying' road. This sort of 'shorthand' should not replace > mapping the > real situation on the ground ESPECIALLY where the cycleway ( or > sidewalk/footpath ) is not physically part of the 'accompanying' road. > > NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the 'correct' way of > mapping! >
+1 couldn't agree more. We had the case in Germany last year that separately mapped cycleways were deleted and cycleway=track was added to a nearby road, that actually was physically divided from the cycleway (which btw. was also connected to another way, the main road wasn't - a situation that applies quite often in similar cases). Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
