[Talk-GB] traffic island mapping / harmful detail?

[Dave F]

This appears to be about two separate subjects. This email's subject 
title is a little confusing & it doesn't help that the original edits 
have been amended.

1. Any stationary, physical entity can be mapped. How much detail is 
mapped is up to the individual contributor.

2. Landuse boundaries should not be attached to highways. The highway=* 
tag represents the infinitesimally narrow centreline of the road. No 
width is implied. Each renderer decides how to represent its width, or 
use the width=* sub-tag.
The problem: A field boundary with a barrier=gate tag. When the boundary 
is attached to a highway that gate also appears to be on the highway. An 
obvious difficulty for routers.

DaveF

On 31/03/2021 11:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Dear UK community,
>
> the DWG was made aware of a discussion between two long-standing UK
> mappers (Tallguy and JayTurnr) about traffic islands, here
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96021663
>
> I would welcome it if this could be discussed in as larger group so that
> a consensus may be found.
>
> As an aside, I noticed that there is a "harmful edits" channel on
> Discord. It would be nice if users of that channel could apply some
> caution before branding edits as "harmful" there. Discord is a closed
> medium that requires a signup, and while I don't expect us to refrain
> from discussing the edits of a newly signed up teenager vandal because
> they are not present, I don't think it is good style to use the platform
> to bad-mouth edits of an active, and responsive, mapper who isn't even
> there to defend themselves.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>