[Talk-lv] [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Lauris Bukšis-Haberkorns]

Bļins, sorry ne uz to listi nosūtīju :)))) Nu tīri teorētiski esmu
sazīmējis vismaz Gulbenē vairāk kā 90% ielu un kaut kad būs jāiet
cauri viss jāpārskata surface utt, tad arī varētu, salikt kur ir
ietves :) Jo Gulbenē pārāk bieži neesmu un neko daudz tur jaunu salikt
klāt nevaru, bet to kur ir ietves es zinu un varētu sabakstīt... kā ne
kā 18 gadus tur nodzīvojis esmu un arī pa tiem 8, ko neesmu nekas nav
daudz mainījies :))))

Lauris

2009/8/10  <uldics at gmail.com>:
> Es uzskatu, ka mums šai jautājumā nevajag steigties. Strādāsim pie mūsu
> pamatprioritātēm. Tik smalku detalizāciju vēlāk ieviesīsim.
> 1. Nav tāda problēma vēl mums aktualizējusies.
> 2. Citreiz trotuārs ir pie paša ceļa, citreiz tur ir dažāda platuma zālājs
> pa vidu vai vēl kas (tas gan varētu būt arguments vienā frontes pusē)
> 3. Kamēr mūsu kartografētajās vietās ir salīdzinoši maza detalizācija, šitik
> smalkus noteikumus ieviest būtu potenciālo jauno kartografētāju atbaidīšana.
> Bet informācijas pēc labi. Zinu, ka uzvarēs pareizais risinājums.
> uldics
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:31:23 +0300, Lauris Bukšis-Haberkorns
> <lafriks at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/10 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk>:
>>
>>>> This must be discussed, completed and accepted asap so more people
>>>> could start using it without fear that it would change..
>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway
>>>
>>> This is missing the point completely :(
>>> Micro mapping needs to have a SEPARATE way for this. Just the short
>>> distance
>>> between my own road and the next village has several changes of side and
>>> position for the footpath, which simply adding tags to the existing ways
>>> does
>>> not properly address!
>>>
>>> This is a case of the distinct difference between 'highway' defines
>>> everything, and mapping the actual features rather than guessing where
>>> they
>>> are relative to some vaguely connected highway. If we are never going to
>>> provide high resolution maps, then the guestimate method works, at some
>>> point,
>>> actual road widths become important, as does additional features either
>>> side
>>> of those roads?
>>>
>>> Once you start adding this sort of fine detail it has to be done as a
>>> separate
>>>  object. Breaking up a simply way every time the footpath detail changes,
>>> and
>>> then trying to combine that with additional ways where they fall a bit
>>> further
>>> way from the road is what needs to be avoided?
>>
>> I think that both ways should coexist. In city most of the roads have
>> footway just next to it and in these cases just adding footway=both
>> and footway.width=x (or what ever syntax is decided) will make things
>> a lot easier. In this case if adding separate ways for footway there
>> will be three times more ways and it will be really hard to maintain
>> such map if something changes. Also it will be easier to specify rules
>> to renderer as I think that not everyone will need to render footways
>> near ways while footways in parks are still important.
>> Of course footway proposal is not complete enough as I would like it
>> to see but that could be discussed.
>> I completely agree with you that it wont work in all situations so
>> both schemes should coexist. If we want later to move to one scheme
>> footway tag could be easily converted from footway=both + width (or
>> default width if not specified) to separate way.
>>
>> Lauris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-lv mailing list
>> Talk-lv at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>