M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I do agree that replacing highway=ford with ford=yes is a good idea,
>> though it should be done properly, and not breaking existing applications.
>
> As long as the DISTANCE of the water area of the ford can be handled by this
> change then it may be acceptable, but simply tagging a node is not the right
> way to provide ALL of the information that would be useful when it comes to
> micro-mapping the details?
if it's about a ford in a stream which is tagged say width=0.7, which
other information would you get from a way for the ford instead of a
node?
Well a number of the fords around the Cotswolds are not simple passages across a
narrow stream like that. They can have some considerable distance in the water
and way well come out at a different position on the bank on the other side. SO
the way that forms the path through is required! Simplifying things at one level
makes including that detail at another more difficult so SIMPLY removing ford
from highway then requires some other way to map the 'highway' element through
more complex fords ...
Wouldn't hydrants (or public telephones, etc.) be better mapped as
areas when it comes to micro-mapping;-) ? There is no "node" in real
world, still many objects are better (or almost equally) represented
by a node instead of by an area.
Some means of including the microlevel deat,l IS required and has yet to be
agreed on. At some scale a nde needs to be replaced with an area but at present
OSM has no way of including that data :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
