sam at archives.org.au
Thu Feb 25 08:57:47 GMT 2010
On 25/2/10 3:59 AM, Liz wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> This, on the other hand, may well be true. But IMHO this is NOT a
>> reason to limit what gets entered into the OSM database, but simply to
>> *pre-process* the OSM data (filtering out unwanted details as desired)
>> prior to loading onto the GPS unit.
> i agree.
> perhaps a cyclist would want the roads removed for some styles of map
Yes, actually that's rather like what I had in mind: a walking map of
It was me, you see; I'm the overmapper!
I don't think the extra detail is harmful, and if one were to produce a
map in which the footways were big and obvious, and the roads little
incidental grey lines, then this data would be better off as ways rather
than extrapolated from roads' tags.
Of course, it's that slippery slope again: at what point will someone
come along and want to map footpaths as areas?! Actually, the GIS data
that I'm most familiar with (not to imply that I'm familiar with it at
all, really) is that of Western Power, where every footpath /is/ an
area, as well as every grassy verge and driveway entrance!
More information about the Talk-au