On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Maarten Deen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:19:42 +0200, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Jonas Stein wrote: >>> In the IRC channel i was told, that there are users who paint >>> empty nodes in the map to mark things like >>> "road is not mapped, but continues here" >> >> I do this occasionally, and I'm sure I haven't made this up but got >> the practice from someone/somewhere else - when a way is drawn and you >> know it goes on but haven't mapped it, you put three "dots", just as >> you do in written language: >> >> --------------- . . . >> >> I'm not religious about it but I think it is pretty elegant because >> it does not require language to explain it - or at least that's what I >> thought until I heard from several people that they "delete empty >> nodes on sight" without further thought. > > It's the first that I heard of this strategy and I'm not sure if I > would recognize it. I certainly haven't in the past. > > It does raise a question: why not just map a way over it and tag it > with some FIXME? If I map a new area and make photo's and see that there > is a road somewhere that I didn't go, I map the road as far as I can see > it and. >
I've no idea where I first came across it, but I have also used it as far back as 2006. We didn't have any aerial imagery to trace, so if nobody had walked down that way with a GPS you had no idea where it was going, but you might have a name or something from the end, so you put in a small stub road and dot dot dot. There also wasn't much of a map viewer, or styled editing, so three dots was a lot more obvious when editing than a tag. In the world of validators, slippy maps, JOSM post mappaint, aerial imagery and masses of POI/addresses it makes less sense, and is less visually obvious. But I still like it :-) Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
