[OSM-talk] Ways in tunnels

[Etienne]

On 10/4/06, Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
>
> Ahoy,
>
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 07:14, Erik Johansson wrote:
> > On 10/3/06, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> > > Lets assume a rail line (A-D) which runs through a tunnel (B-C)
> > >
> > > A_____________B   __   __  __  __  __ C________D
> > >
> > > 2)  Way A-B   C-D tagged as railway =rail.; and way B-C tagged as
> railway
> > > = rail, tunnel =yes
> >
> > I don't like 2. Because; a new way signifies something is beginning,
> > and sure the tunnel is beginning, but the tracks doesn't stop here.
>
> Really? Because I've always tried to keep ways relatively short for a
> number
> of reasons, and if there's no suitable junction around I'll just
> arbitrarily
> start a new way. This means:
>
> a) Names show up on maps at regular intervals, so you don't have to follow
> a
> road away 5km from the place you're looking at to find out its name. This
> could of course be fixed in any renderer.
>
> b) When someone else downloads the area with a bit of the way in it, they
> don't have to keep following it for 5km downloading new chunks of data
> before
> they can modify it.
>
> Is that good/bad practice?


I think this is very good practice given the current capabilities of our
tools.  Also one day I hope there will be a way of combining multiple ways
into a single mega-way, which will allow a hierarchy of ways to be built and
solve the data duplication issues of this approach.

Etienne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20061004/42e2e00f/attachment.html>