[OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
Andy Street
mail at andystreet.me.uk
Thu May 22 19:02:08 BST 2008
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 18:03 +0100, Rory McCann wrote:
> Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> > I'd vote for complete=no, and rendering it with an arrow on the
> > unconnected end of the way. Sometimes, e.g. if you pass under a bridge,
> > but haven't gone back to pass over it, you may have a way with arrows on
> > both ends. That is fine. I'd allow and render towards=[name of place],
> > but that get's confusing in the 2 ended passing under a bridge case.
>
> I agree, complete=no makes sense. But what should this be applied to?
> Nodes? Ways? I suggest it should be added to a node that's at the end of
> a way to signafy that the way continues alone roughly the same direction
> as it was going. I think it should be rendered as a a few dots in the
> same direction and the same colour and thickness as the original way.
>
> Thoughts?
Tagging nodes as complete=no seems a little strange to me unless it
refers to a POI. After all it's the way that is incomplete not the node.
How would you interpret a node tagged as complete=no that is shared
between multiple ways?
Personally, I've been mapping with complete=no on the way and adding
extra details using the note tag where appropriate.
Regards,
Andy
More information about the talk
mailing list