[OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas

[Roy Wallace]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Isn't it better in most situations to have both (ways and areas)
> rather than just one or the other?
>
> At an intersection, yes, there is one squarish section of road that I
> am capable of traveling on in any spot in any direction.  But the
> actual paths of travel through that intersection form intersecting
> lines, not areas.

This raises another interesting question, that is, whether highways=*
should *necessarily* express logical "paths of travel", or whether
they are just a convenient way to represent an *area* used as a path
of travel, as a placeholder for future, more detailed mapping (e.g. as
an area).

I'm not convinced that, say, a road should be mapped as *both* a way
and an area - I don't see any need for that. But I guess you could map
an "intersection" as an area and the paths of travel that pass through
it as ways - if you want... Mixing and matching - that is, using
*whatever most appropriately captures reality* in that particular case
- is part of the beauty of OSM.

That said, in reality, features that are 2D *are* areas, and should
*eventually* be mapped as such in OSM. But I don't think there's any
rush. Using ways with width=* is a good, quick, interim solution.
Where you have the time, sure, go ahead and map areas.

I do think we will need some more discussion and documentation about
mapping areas - remember the debate about that keeps coming up, about
whether adjacent areas should share nodes?