[OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Sun Dec 6 22:25:56 GMT 2009


( Forgot to FIX the address :( Another crap practice in OSM! )

Richard Bullock wrote:
> The principle we have used in the past is where it is not physically 
> possible to cross between two carriageways without leaving the road surface 
> then mark it as two separate ways. I've not seen a compelling argument 
> against continuing this practice. The only argument I've seen from you is 
> essentially, "it's boring - it takes far too long" - which I don't really 
> agree with. Dual carriageways all over the world are mapped like this on OSM 
> (and it seems Google, Yahoo and I'm sure others do as well).

And that is what I would agree is the FIRST choice for mapping any divided
structure. You do not bodge the detail so that it renders correctly, the
rendering needs fixing if it is not displayed properly. Trying to add more tags
for situations that ARE already covered by normal mapping practice is wrong.
Adding a tag to cover details that ARE missing is right. So the current proposal
is only acceptable where no physical barrier exists - and therefore the
description is wrong.

( And adding footways properly where pedestrians are kept separate from vehicles
also requires additional ways. Simply adding yet more tags for something which
is not part of the actual roadway is another 'macro' bodge which in reality
requires at least a separate way ... )

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php





More information about the talk mailing list