<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Pieren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com">pieren3@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sasq64@gmail.com" target="_blank">sasq64@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div>
<div>I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and move it into one or the other?<br> </div></div></blockquote>
</div></div>It's best to unglue but it's also not wrong to glue the landuse. Some will say it's inaccurate, but hey, drawing a road with a polyline is also inaccurate.<br>In some cases, ungluing can be worst : imagine two parallel streets and one pedestrian square in between. If you unglue the square, you need polylines to represent the roads connection (for e.g. pedestrian routing). These lines are inacurate because they can be drawn at some intervals only where physically the connection is everywhere along the square. If you glue the pedestrian square, your problem is easily solved and closer to the reality.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>But then we are not talking about landuse, we are actually talking about a way, albeit a very wide one - and ways should be connected to each other. (And now we are back to the topic if ways should be areas... but thats another discussion :).</div>
<div><br></div></div>