[Tagging] road side

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 22 14:57:00 UTC 2013


Am 22.08.2013 02:56, schrieb André Pirard:
> On 2013-08-21 17:50, fly wrote :
>> Am 21.08.2013 15:13, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>>> Il giorno 21/ago/2013, alle ore 13:35, fly
>>> <lowflight66 at googlemail.com> ha scritto:
>>>> Pleas, do not start to tag these small areas as
>>>> closedways/multipolygon. 
>>> reasoning? 
>> It is clustering the map, hard to split and all editors I know do
>> better work with lines than with areas and I am not taking about
>> several overlapping lines which is another point. The more essential
>> problem is the visualization of lanes, width and the :lanes extension

> It's not a matter of making areas.  They just are there.
> Are you saying that we should make buildings or properties larger than
> they are to avoid the space in between?

I have no problem with the space in between. The other way around is
more a problem, that people tend to not leaving the space and making
areas too big. Only thing we might need is landuse=highway/road.

> Are you saying that we should not describe what's in between to avoid
> adding one or two lines to close the area?

Do not get me wrong. Areas are useful but either we decide to also map
highways as areas or we should not overuse it. I am not that happy with
small parts as areas. In some case it is the only way to describe the
feature but often there are more possibilities.

> Are parkings going to be removed?  Or put on a line because editors
> prefer lines?

Yes, I would remove it as long as it is a parking along the road.

> Strangely enough, the last time I was here, I was almost unanimously
> advised to use an area instead of a line for a dam.
> And, likely, if you want to avoid splitting, use such small areas for
> bridges and the roads will run uninterrupted through it.
> That's not the good way to do it, though, look at my SEGMENT
> proposition.  It would avoid unnecessary relations too.
> I have no personal taste about splitting, I just notice that it's THE
> perfect nuisance.

Sorry, I did not raise my voice there, but I think this should work as
one line, as long as you do not want to add much extra information.

I wonder, why I spend time to add the :lanes extensions when I rather
could simply map each lane as area, maybe even all as multipolygons. At
least at intersections the data would rather look like a chess board
than a map.

cu fly



More information about the Tagging mailing list