[OSM-talk] Bridge tags

[80n]

On 1/5/07, Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
>
> On Friday 05 January 2007 01:35, Mike Collinson wrote:
> > I feel that that is what segments are there for, recording local
> > variations of short geographic extent.  Making a new Way every time a
> > road crosses a bridge, enters a tunnel, passes a row of houses, has
> > an unsealed section, has passing-lane sections, has a cycle lane
> > entering it ... etc just does not seem practical to me and I don't
> > have the time.  My rationale is that even if the info doesn't render
> > now, at least it is there.
>
> This was discussed a few times before (search the archives). Segments may
> be
> phased out, and the prevailing opinion was that they shouldn't carry any
> metadata. Ways should definitely be split for bridges, which I admit is a
> bit
> of a pain. If you're tagging segments then I guess somebody will need to
> go
> and clean all that data up another time...


If segments ever get phased out then there will have to be some kind of
automatic conversion.  I would imagine that each distinctly tagged segment
would become a separate way.  So tagging segments is OK if you can live with
(very) delayed gratification.  If you want to see results of your work this
year rather than next year then tagging ways is the thing to do.

We really need some improvements to the client side tools to help make the
right option the easiest option.  I believe that potlatch is promising to
deliver a significant improvement for us.

80n






Regards,
> Tom
>
> --
> The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting
> - Kundera
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070105/51fd3c41/attachment.html>