At 2010-07-12 11:22, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Serge Wroclawski wrote:
The question is: Is this okay? [sharing of nodes between a building and
an immediately adjacent parking lot]
I don't think there's a right/wrong answer here; I'm just curious
about people's opinions.
This question is discussed regularly. There are people who furiously
defend one or the other method but in fact both are in widespread use.
My personal take is to view it topologically: if the parking lot in your
example ends exactly where the building starts, so that if someone were to
move one of the building's nodes it would be desirable to have the parking
lot "adapt", then re-use the node.
If however the objects have been mapped at different times by different
people and nobody has really paid attention to the relation between the
two (i.e. there might just be a little grass strip or a fence between
building and parking lot), then don't use the same nodes because that
would be making a claim about the relation between the two which has no basis.
Exactly. +1. In the case described (building and attached parking lot), it
makes sense, as it usually does for adjacent land parcels (landuse=* closed
ways) and administrative subdivisions (boundary=administrative closed ways)
too. If they really are two polygons of a similar type that share a single
interface (edge), then glue them. If they just happen to have parts that
seem to lie in the same place, don't.
--
Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
