[OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced

[Lester Caine]

Claus Hindsgaul wrote:
> 
> 
> 2010/1/3 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk <mailto:lester at lsces.co.uk>>
> 
>     It is however a very good example of where people have taken the
>     trouble to
>     ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! At the
>     end of the
>     day everything needs to be mapped fully, and there is no case for
>     REMOVING
>     tracks that are mapped, and every case for providing a means to
>     properly replace
>     'shorthand' with fully mapped detail.
> 
> I agree to the goal of getting everything on the map. But you can not 
> conclude that in some cases the best and most operative description is 
> not reached by replacing one representation by a better one, e.g. in 
> some cases removing shadow bicycle paths or sidewalks and incorporate 
> them in the road tags.

The agreement has to be fully documented, but some 'removals'are being pushed as 
the only way of doing something at the expense of allowing the micromapping case.

> If an agreed OSM project goal exists, where uncompromised and 
> non-reflected micro-mapping [the consequence of your phrase "everything 
> needs to be mapped fully"] is described as the ultimate goal, please 
> help me with a pointer. Then this discussion is over, and I must accept 
> loosing some of my faith in the overall usefulness of the project.
> Otherwise I think we are obliged to continuously put some thought into 
> how we really end up with the best and most operative map description.

In large areas of the world, the macro level of mapping is now 'complete', and 
people are adding fine detail like 'post boxes', parking bays, drive ways and 
the like. This SHOULD not impinge on the macro view, and so should be able to be 
hidden as required. The current problem is that SOME people are firmly of the 
belief that this micro level of detail should not be present at all. Personally 
I see this as the eventual target for the whole world, BUT the macro view should 
still work to an acceptable level.

I think the current discussion on 'cycleways' just highlights the different 
views people hold. If a cycleway exists as a separate area of 'highway' then it 
should be mapped as such. Adding tags to a near by road with additional tags for 
things such as gaps between two physically divided areas will always be wrong, 
but at a macro zoom level there should be some shorthand way of combining a 
number of ways into a single 'route' element. THAT is the level of agreement 
that needs to be reached! The lowers levels should always map the 'bridge', 
footways, vehicle ways, and any other structures such as verges, banks, slopes 
and the differences between their levels, while the macro view gives a 'way' 
with a bridge tag. Surely that is the current target?

-- 
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