[OSM-talk] The Highway tags and other junk Wars

[Ben Robbins]

1)  This has been covered. That doesnt work, but I don't intend to discuss 
it more.  Read back and there are obvious faults.

2) So for 2 you are saying that a hedge would go under a border tag (or 
equivelent?).  Its hard to make out a clear answer, as the answer is 
politically answered and patronising.

3) "adjacent ways pasing through gates."  Nope, there is not any ways going 
threw the gate.
"Whilst the data is not strictly 'accurate'", Then its not a solution, if a 
more acurate way exsists.

If I was now to tag single nodes with a hell of a lot of data stating how 
the gate should render, I will have wasted a LOT of time, I will make it a 
pain for a person to come along and alter when a standard way exsists, and a 
pain for anyone trying to visually interpret informaiton from the data, 
prior to a render.    Please then see the example images I linked to in the 
other email.  This spots more floors with the node idea.    In just putting 
a segment for the gate, I shall be able to easelly adapt them if nessesery, 
and they correlate to how they are in realtiy, and thus fit into the map.

4) "If the features are co-incident you pick the predominent feature"   no, 
no, no.  If any information excists it should be able to be tagged.  Not 
just the prominet feature.

>and currently live with the fact that you will potentially have two 
>adjacent bridges

You seem to be coming from the oposite angle, wich is to live with faults 
rather than think of solutions.

5)

>You assess whether:...1,2,3...

I'll ignore them, as I have obviously considered all of those points

>Lay in 8 nodes, one in each corner and one in the middle of each side, link 
>the nodes with 8 segments, and tag the nodes in the centre of the sides as 
>gates, tag the feature with a note as a reminder and to inform others that 
>this is a sheering pen, and when the boundary tag is approved come back and 
>convert the segments into a boundary way with the type fence.

sigh.  This is exactly what I do!...this is my whole arguement.  To stick a 
node in the center of the gate is a waste, as there are 2 segments either 
side, wich if not tagged as a gate, will be tagged as a fence, wich 1) they 
are not, and 2) if there taged, why not make them a gate??....  the node in 
the center would obviously have its use if a way passes threw.

So your solution to this problem is to do what I do and what im suggesting, 
but instead of tagging the 2 tags as gate, you would incorrectly leave them 
blank or tag them as fence.

This point is followed on in the other email with attached images.   But it 
seems that in this situation your solution is to do as I do, wich indicates 
the posibilities offered with 'your' method do not work.

2nd Email

>I wholly agree, and if the gate is not on the main way ie in a boundary 
>feature abutting the way you would create it as:

1) Weather more or less people agree is irrelevent.  The validiy of 
arguements should not be basesd on that.  I find these reference to 'we' 
irritating thererfore.
2) "not on the main way"  In tagging the center node, it IS on the main way!

3rd email.

>"The notes are there for your and others reference when editing the data"

The original source of this line of arguement was that you said data should 
just be put in the notes if less inportant, or not posible to be added as 
there is tag contradiction.   Just having the data only avaliable in editors 
is not satifactory.  At some point the majority of people that use the maps 
will not use the editors, but just view the data in its visually rendered 
form.  Therefore if its not on the map, then it might as well just not be 
there.

Ben

_________________________________________________________________
It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel  
http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com