Consider slightly offsetting each level. Add a note saying slightly-offset-from-level-below.
Sharing nodes between vertical layers is certainly wrong. Richard On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, SomeoneElse <li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk>wrote: > Rob Nickerson wrote: > >> >> Am I doing something wrong? Is the fixer tool flagging something up >> incorrectly? >> > > In cases such as this I normally say to the other mapper that I was last > there on so-and-so date, and when I was last there it looked like X; and > ask whether perhaps he's been there more recently and the geometry's > changed? > > Personally I believe that the various QA tools do an excellent job, but > it'd be simply impossible to miss all the false negatives and not catch > some false positives - it has to be up to the mapper to decide what's a > real issue and what's not. > > (begin rant) > > I wish more of the people doing these remote corrections would actually > talk to the person who did the original mapping in the first place. > Perhaps the way was drawn by a new mapper who actually has lots of > questions about how to do things, but doesn't know who or where to ask. > Maybe it's a mistake by someone who's been mapping for a while (we all > still make them!), in which the best person to correct the error is surely > a person who's been there rather than a person who hasn't. > > In some cases it does make sense to correct remotely (perhaps > non-connecting footpaths that match GPS traces that were drawn by a mapper > who hasn't been seen since 2009 would be an example), but in many cases I > would argue that it doesn't. > > (end rant) > > As an interesting aside, what I've found myself doing more frequently > recently is revisiting places that I'd mapped previously that had been > subsequently "armchaired". In almost all cases what resulted from a > resurvey wasn't exactly the same as from the original, but slightly more > nuanced and with a lot more detail - revisiting isn't necessarily a bad > thing. Still, it can be annoying to have to go back and resurvey an area > because someone has "corrected" it to look like an old Bing photo, prompted > by a false positive on a QA site. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
