On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/1/31 Steve Bennett <[email protected]>: >> I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than >> colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways >> for areas that do actually touch. > > Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case > that the polygons really do touch
Agreed, although I'd like to point out that in a case where one of the features is physical and one is virtual (for instance, a road and an administrative boundary), I wouldn't classify that as features which "touch", and I think parallel ways *are* a viable solution. To wit, I'd say parallel ways are the proper solution for TIGER boundaries which coincide with TIGER lines. Especially when the way is a dual carriageway. Fixing dual carriageways which share nodes with TIGER boundaries sucks. Fortunately most TIGER boundaries themselves suck, so a simple fix is to just delete the TIGER boundary. (Note that there's no problem with two *boundaries* sharing nodes or (preferably) ways. I'm talking about a road sharing a way with a boundary, which maybe is okay sometimes, but sometimes definitely is not.) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
