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

[Tom Crocker]

Hi Mike.

Sorry if I'm the other member you think has been railroading their views. I
was trying to present what I'd understood and hoped more experienced
members would chip in. Thanks for doing so! I think that in updating the
wiki Nick was probably acting in the absence of dissenting opinion (to that
point).

Regards

Tom

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021, 00:34 Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB, <
talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I am extremely unhappy with the way a couple of members have railroaded
> their views and propagated these into updates on the "Land use and areas of
> natural land" and " How to map landuse" pages under " GB discussion on the
> mapping of Land Use & Land Cover" as if there has been a detailed
> discussion and an agreement reached. I certainly have not agreed with these
> views.
>
> The comments below have been presented as if they are facts, but they seem
> to me to be personal views.
>
> >1. Any stationary, physical entity can be mapped. How much detail is
> >mapped is up to the individual contributor.
> This is largely true, however, the implication is also that the mapper can
> do this however they like. For the original point on traffic islands, I am
> strongly in favour of not separating carriageways where there is just a
> small traffic island for crossing purposes. There is a perfectly good tag
> that indicates that there is an island in the centre of the road. Splitting
> the highway does not provide any more information and makes the map
> confused.
>
> >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.
> In my view, the highway=* tag does not represent the centre of the road,
> it represents the complete highway. I accept that where fences are drawn
> then some landuse areas such as farmland may be better drawn up to the
> fence, (using common nodes with the fence). However, some of the landuse
> values are for non-physical things and so the edge is entirely arbitrary.
> For example if one side of the road is retail and the other side is
> residential, I consider it to be much better to align them both with the
> highway. This is very similar to boundaries - if a county boundary runs
> along a road, we do not say that the road is in neither county and draw
> boundary lines on both sides of the road. It is even more nonsensical to
> draw two landuse=residential areas, one on each side of a road with a gap
> between them. Quite clearly, if both sides of a road are residential areas
> then the area taken up by the road is also part of a residential area.
>
> >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.
> Quite obviously the gate should be placed where it is sited (which is
> never on a junction). This is nothing to do with whether the landuse goes
> up to the highway.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210404/3be81f77/attachment.htm>