[Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
osm at tobias-knerr.de
Thu Mar 5 09:20:02 UTC 2015
On 05.03.2015 00:54, Warin wrote:
First, let me thank you for putting some effort into this long-dormant
topic. I fully agree that area steps are a necessary addition.
My impression from previous discussions of the topic was that the steps'
shape within the area is hard to define. You propose the restriction
that the upper and lower boundary need to have the same number of nodes.
While that's a possible approach, it's also fragile and seems not as
intuitive. Have you compared this with the alternative of working with
percentages of the way length?
You mention the possibility that the number of steps may vary from one
side to the other. In my opinion, this should be tagged explicitly.
Relying on the precise shape of the steps area is not possible as this
would not allow to distinguish the case where the steps vary in /length/
from one side to the other.
You also mention a minimum width for such areas. I don't think that's
wise: We should allow for irregularly formed steps to be mapped as
areas, no matter how wide or narrow.
Finally, I suggest a statement that the highway=steps way should always
be drawn perpendicular to the steps, rather than diagonally across the
area, for example.
I have a few more ideas, e.g. regarding landings, but I'll leave it at
this for now. This mail is long enough already.
Thanks for considering my suggestions,
More information about the Tagging