[OSM-talk] Layer transitions

[Jochen Topf]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:58:36PM +0200, Lambert Carsten wrote:
> > That often leads to inconsistencies, but 
> > inconsistent is not necessarily bad. 
> Exactly, no need to 'force' junctions to have connecting roads on the same 
> layer. If you really believe in the 'middle of the junction theory' let us be 
> inconsistent with that one and help mappers clean up real issues rather than 
> adding titsy bits of road between junctions and bridges.

I didn't say anything about "titsy bits". If you only add this to work around
the Keepright message, that doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense to add
a non-bridge part of the way, if it actually is large enough to make a
difference when rendering.

> > And if we get better software or more 
> > detailed data or want to support new uses, we'll change things around.
> 
> Can we agree on getting rid of the "Right" and especially "Wrong" texts that 
> deal with this issue in the Map Features and give some advice like:
> "Often bridges/tunnels will not connect directly to a junction in which case 
> you should/can (?) add a piece of road connecting the two." ?

The page could definitely have a more thorough description of the problems
with either way of mapping and give some advice, when each makes sense. Feel
free to add this. Your sentence above sounds like a good start to me.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  jochen at remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298