Well that got more of a reaction than floating a discussion on the tagging list, didn't it? The tagging list was set up so that the main list wouldn't be bothered with such stuff.
There was no debate on the wiki, except a brief comment that presumably resulted in the tag-to-higher approach (from chriscf...), and another old comment that said the opposite. There's half a dozen unresolved items in trac, because the Mapnik rules don't work, so you end up with gaps in casings where there shouldn't be, and lower class roads rendered on top of higher class link roads. So clearly not such a big issue that the talk list should be bothered with it... So I look at the issue, consider the alternative rendering options (links interwoven, links at bottom, motorway_links treated differently), look at some commercial maps and see how they do it. And come to the conclusion that the wiki is telling me to do something wrong. So I change the wiki to give, in a succinct fashion, what I think is the best advice for going forward, and one that's only likely to improve matters. Clearly no-one's that much bothered, so it's a small service to study the matter and write it up. Onwards and upwards to better data and maps... Fortunately I have a thick hide. If there's a decent argument for tag-to-higher for roads between trunk-tertiary, other than "we've always done it that way", let's hear it. Preferably on the tagging list. Richard Mann On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, James Livingston > <li...@sunsetutopia.com> wrote: > >> You could argue that it's wikifiddling in an attempt to influence how people >> map, or that it's documenting how a lot of people already map. It's all a >> matter of perspective. > > If it was "documenting how a lot of people map" then it would say > there were two ways of doing it. This is clearly not the case, since > it was just arbitrarily changed. It's not a "matter of perspective". > >> I, and from what I see in use where I live quite a few other too, have >> always used xxx_link tags to join a highway=xxx with a higher one, because >> we think what was documented on the wiki (xxx_link joins highway=xxx with a >> lower one) is silly. > > So you're saying there's two ways to do it. One has been established > since forever, and is what almost everyone does (*_link is the higher > of the two joined roads). The other way, which a small number of > people use specifically because they don't like how the main method > renders, is complex and completely daft (link is the lower of the two > joined roads, except for motorway links, which are higher, and trunk > links, which are only permitted between two roads of the same level). > Right. > > I'd advise you started tagging using a more sensible, well established > scheme. And to realise that if you want to change the scheme, that's > an entirely different thing that can't be accomplished by changing the > wiki and then claiming it's valid. > > Cheers, > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
