[OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 15:51:36 BST 2009
2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>:
>> 2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>:
>> >> But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone
>> >> with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as
>> >> b)
>> > Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers
>> whether they want to use a way or an area for a road.
>> it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas are merged though.
> Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing easier is not a good thing.
+1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to
the center of the road.
>> > But with option (b) and a linear way you would have a gap next to the
>> road. In the case of landuse, this is not a problem in practice, but if there
>> is a place, there you need to insert artificial ways that are not there in
>> reality, just to get the connectivity between the two objects:
>> > http://osm.org/go/0JUKytHID--
>> which objects are you referring to? parkings usually have those ways
>> (for crossing the sidewalk) so they won't be artificial, and
>> pedestrian areas are the exception I mentioned above.
> Look at the google sat image:
That's the mentioned pedestrian area. I agree with you here.
> Mapping it the way it is done there does not really make sense: Either the exact geometry is important for you, then you should convert both the plaza and the road to areas. Or it isn't, but then there shouldn't be a problem with extending the plaza so that it borders to the road.
+1. but that's still pedestrian areas / highway areas. In these cases
the areas _do_ connect to the road.
More information about the talk