On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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). > That's not an argument for or against mapping cycleways as tracks. That's just bad mapping. No one would avocate attempting to map something in a way which simply isn't expressive enough for what needs to be captured. Steve
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
