[Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 07:33:31 GMT 2010

On 1 February 2010 15:50, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. Hence why I have said multiple times that I think a way PLUS
> an area is a better solution than trying to mangle the idea of an area
> into "tags on nodes".

What ever you call it, the problem is still the same, minimising the
labour needed to describe something, that way more things can be drawn
in the same or less amount of time. I still think it's a bad idea to
be drawing 2 objects to describe a single idea, 1 object = 1 thing, in
this case 2 objects = 1 thing. Twice the work (or more) but you don't
get twice the benefit, the amount of information added is minimal.

> See this drawing and tell me what the width tag means:
> http://www.myimgs.net/images/puan.gif

Sure, using nodes for complex information is meaningless, it was just
an idea to reduce the amount of times a way needs to be split to
describe something, using areas doesn't reduce the amount of data.

> Why does it have to be a single object? A road has a centerline, and
> it has a footprint. Why not map both...?

That isn't the problem, all existing ways are made up on multiple
objects to model increasingly complex things, however making mapping
more complex doesn't increase the benefit at the same rate.

> Here's a brainstorming picture, plenty of kinks to be worked out if
> anyone's up for a challenge: http://www.myimgs.net/images/psgb.gif
> E.g. if we're mapping ways as areas, how should the intersection
> "area" be tagged?
> Anyway, I'll now refrain from distracting you from writing up your proposal :)

I'm not the one insisting on it, in fact I'm still trying to encourage
brain storming, but some people think things should be written up in a
formal proposal before they'd ever consider thinking beyond their
little box.

More information about the Tagging mailing list