[OSM-talk] Left and Right?
robin.paulson at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 00:13:39 BST 2008
2008/8/26 Mark Williams <mark.666 at blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Is 'mapping for renderers' any worse than 'mapping for routers'?
both are bad i think
> Step back from the "we're going to use it for routing busses" approach a
> moment; a fair few users may wish to print a map, so the renderers need
> to do this right. I will prefer to see the bus-stops pass on the sat-nav
> map as reference as I drive by them. I might like warning of busses
> likelihood of stopping.
> My main driver on this is that they are roadside features, not highway
> features. As I said, like pubs, postoffices, etc. This is the real
> world, mapping what's on the ground, bus stops are not like
> mini-roundabouts or traffic lights.
well, it's a representation of the real world, and idealised, yet
imperfect one at that
i'm not sure why they're roadside features, rather than highway
features. the bus stops *on* the highway (which includes the path, as
we discussed earlier). at no point does it leave the highway
the *sign* is on the roadside. we're not mapping signs. maps and signs
do the same thing, but in different ways - they contain information
about a mapworthy feature, but each are not mapworthy themselves.
we're not mapping signs
> Finally, yes I think the above is right for house numbers as well. My
> house is next to the way; not even on the implied footpath, it's an
> off-road feature. I think this is true of most...
absolutely. ideally, there would be a drive from the road to the
parking area, then a path from that to the door
More information about the talk