[OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
stevagewp at gmail.com
Sun Jan 3 08:29:14 GMT 2010
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2010/1/2 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk>
>> Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are mapped - or
>> adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually physically form
>> part of
>> the 'accompanying' road. This sort of 'shorthand' should not replace
>> mapping the
>> real situation on the ground ESPECIALLY where the cycleway ( or
>> sidewalk/footpath ) is not physically part of the 'accompanying' road.
>> NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the 'correct' way of
> couldn't agree more. We had the case in Germany last year that separately
> mapped cycleways were deleted and cycleway=track was added to a nearby road,
> that actually was physically divided from the cycleway (which btw. was also
> connected to another way, the main road wasn't - a situation that applies
> quite often in similar cases).
That's not an argument for or against mapping cycleways as tracks. That's
just bad mapping. No one would avocate attempting to map something in a way
which simply isn't expressive enough for what needs to be captured.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk