[OSM-dev] ways with 'spurs'
barry.crabtree at gmail.com
Mon Feb 26 15:19:03 GMT 2007
On 2/26/07, Nick Whitelegg <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> wrote:
> Sent by: dev-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> To: dev at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [OSM-dev] ways with 'spurs'
> >I've come across some ways that go:
> > A -> B -> C -> B -> D
> >Shouldn't they be done as:
> > A -> B -> D, with a separate way B -> C?
> A contentious point, but I would say "yes". It makes renderers and data
> models with no notion of two-point segments (only multi-point polylines)
> handle the data better, e.g. shapefiles.
Contentious? Where is the contention :-) Surely a way would never double
back on itself? Isn't it as wrong as a zero length segment? I understand the
debate about forked/looped/disjoint ways. I can see how they can be
*logically* fine but a complete pain for a rendering engine. In this case we
have a way that overlaps itself. I can't see how that can be ok!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dev