Zitat Dave F.:

> Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Alexander Menk wrote:
>>> is there any better way for mapping "very wide steps" (100 m, half
>>> circle) instead of putting lots of steps next to each other.
>> highway=steps area=yes?
> A very good question posed by Alex. I have a few wide steps (~50m) in my
> city.
> It's a good start for a solution from Nathan,

IMHO "highway=steps area=yes" is the easiest way to mark steps as area. 
Unfortunately no renderer show it and routing applications will have also 
problems without a additional way element. But this should not prevent us 
from tagging steps as a area.

> but it would need a
> direction tag in order for the renderers to know which way the steps
> went up & down.

I wonder where is a really need for this information. Do you have a example?

> A similar(ish) problem was brought up recently regarding routing over
> pedestrian areas. They don't have an intrinsic direction in the way that
> linear ways do. Was a solution found?

Adding a way with the same attribution is my solution.
> Off the top of my head I'm thinking of a line within the area that
> defines the direction. it would have to be linked to the boundary by
> using relations(?)

If steps come up as a connection between other way elements, i think we need 
such a line element anyway. For example we can put a relevant information on 
the node represent the top of our step and doing the same on the other end.
I wonder how to teach a renderer drawing "highway=steps area=yes" in a way, 
everybody will recognize it as such on a map. Maybe it is easy on square 
shapes, but what about half circles or waves?
Just a idea: split the boundary in a top line, a bottom line and side lines 
and put it together with the way element mentioned above in a relation...


talk mailing list

Reply via email to