[OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
>
> > But there are multiple ways in reality.  A "way" is a path of travel, not
> a
> > piece of asphalt.
>
> If that's the case why are most "ways" a lane in each direction?
>

I'm not sure that is even the case.


> Surely if what you are saying is true we should plot each direction as
> an individual way.
>

Not if you are free to cross the center line, for instance to make a left
turn across oncoming traffic to turn into a driveway.



On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> >>
> >> > True.  But it is the best way to do it.
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> > Says the person who made the statement.
>
> That doesn't justify anything, using that logic I could say anything
> and it would be true because I said it was.
>

My justification was in the fifty million messages that came before this.


> >> > But there are multiple ways in reality.  A "way" is a path of travel,
> >> > not a
> >> > piece of asphalt.
> >>
> >> Why is it?
> >
> > Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created.  To inform
> us
> > how to get from place to place.
>
> I wasn't asking you about mapping in general I was asking you to
> clarify your statement,


I believe we should define our terms based on the purpose we are trying to
accomplish.  In the case of OSM, I think the purpose is to create maps,
which are used to inform us how to get from place to place, so the proper
definition of "way", at least in terms of ways carrying (vehicular,
pedestrian, bicycle, train) traffic is essentially "A course that is or may
be used in going from one place to another".


> it simply isn't treated that way in all
> situation or each residential street would be 2 parallel ways, instead
> we use a single way to indication a pair of lanes, so which is it
> going to be do we need to split residential streets or do we treat
> things as a piece of asphalt when it suits us?
>

If you want to treat a residential street with a clearly marked center line
and no allowance for U-turns as 2 parallel ways, be my guest.  You're
wasting your time, but I don't see how you're incorrect, as long as you
connect all the driveways and other locations where people are allowed to
cross the center line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090920/3ee14a4f/attachment.html>