[Talk-us] Changeset to revert (or defend?)

Alan Mintz Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Tue May 25 16:14:43 BST 2010


At 2010-05-25 00:02, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >(Personally, I have no issues with a bridge being layer=0 when stuff
> >below it is layer=-1 - we explicitly say that layers are meant to be
> >relative only.

In practice, though, if you make the layers reasonably match the reality, 
it should be possible to add new features in the future without a lot of 
rework of existing layer tags.


>Since before I joined (and, in fact, since they were created in 2008),
>the wiki pages for layer and key:layer have stated that 0 is for the
>ground level, positive numbers are for bridges, and negative numbers
>are for tunnels.

It actually says "...most commonly seen with bridges and tunnels...", not 
that they must be used for them and nothing else.


>"The bridge within a perfectly flat street should be
>layer=1 even if the stream is as far below it as the Grand Canyon." As
>I said, maybe we need a way to mark that this has no consensus (or
>actively not mark that it has consensus) if there is truly a lot of
>disagreement with it.

I disagree that it is necessarily the only correct way to do it. The 
specifics of the location can override that. As to whether the river is at 
layer -3 with the mountains at 0, or the river at 0 with the mountains at 
3, for me, depends on where the majority of features in the area lie. If 
there are a bunch of features at the mountain level, I'd be inclined to put 
the river at -3 so as to not have to have layer tags on the mountain-level 
features. However, I'd probably lean the other way if at all feasible, so 
as to stay somewhat aligned with sea level at layer 0, for ease of 
integration with surrounding areas.


>My personal stance is that layer tags are only necessary when there is
>ambiguity, but of course I won't remove existing ones where correctly
>applied.

Would you describe the exact methodology that you are currently using?

--
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>





More information about the Talk-us mailing list