[OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
lester at lsces.co.uk
Sun Jan 3 11:39:41 GMT 2010
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2010/1/2 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk <mailto:lester at lsces.co.uk>>
> Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are
> mapped - or prevent
> 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'
> NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the
> 'correct' way of mapping!
> 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.
It is however a very good example of where people have taken the trouble to
ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! At the end of the
day everything needs to be mapped fully, and there is no case for REMOVING
tracks that are mapped, and every case for providing a means to properly replace
'shorthand' with fully mapped detail.
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
More information about the talk