On 2015-10-14 09:49, Badita Florin wrote:
Nodes 1856092007 [1] and 1856092002 [2] , which limit the following way [3] between such nodes. This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different things. Is this a valid way?
I have seen this more often. Is it a valid way of mapping? Sure, why not. Is it prudent? I don't think so, precisely because of your concerns:
What if the highway is modified ? since the highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real boundary, so if the highway is changed for any reason, it will modify the boundary along with it.
That is why it you have to be very cautious in connecting different kinds of objects on the same nodes. I've seen this also on multiple occasions with landuses and roads. Not only does this make editting a bit awkward (more difficult to select the object you want to edit), it also is unclear what the meaning of it is.
So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate the way to save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?, I've found similar questions [4] by other users and they indicate it isn't valid but I need a more official argument because the user is upset if we remove this kind of ways from relations
I assume you are not doing automated edits? Then I would just remove the boundary tags from the road and remove the way from the boundary relation and draw/import the boundary new. To have two nodes on exactly the same spot is also not very nice. The JOSM validator will give a warning about that and then you risk that people are going to merge them.
Regards, Maarten _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
