[OSM-talk] Forking ways?

[Dave]

On 1/23/07, Andy Robinson <Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The now preferred method is to break it up into separate linear ways with
> no
> forks although perhaps there should be more discussion whether you make
> the
> central loop a single way in these instances. The total number of ways
> would
> be 5 if you did that and only 4 if you ignore the loop. Probably name
> rendering preferences play a part.


On the other hand, if you're doing a lot of these it's a pain in the behind
to actually make separate ways. I tend to just try and make a sensible order
of the largest number of segments, which helps the name appear correctly,
then just tack the extra little bits on the end. If there is a very large
fork then I create that as a separate way as a compromise position because
otherwise things do seem to break a little at the moment.

I know lots of people like creating data so that the current renderers deal
with it correctly, but personally I think it's the renderers that need
fixing, or the editors that need fixing, not the users -- mostly because in
the grand scheme of the project, that's going to be a lot easier. That said,
a compromise or two at the moment to not make everything look horrible is
probably a good idea :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070123/49a50ecb/attachment.html>