[OSM-talk] Shared nodes between non-routable objects?

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-07-12 11:22, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>>The question is: Is this okay? [sharing of nodes between a building and 
>>an immediately adjacent parking lot]
>
>>I don't think there's a right/wrong answer here; I'm just curious
>>about people's opinions.
>
>This question is discussed regularly. There are people who furiously 
>defend one or the other method but in fact both are in widespread use.
>
>My personal take is to view it topologically: if the parking lot in your 
>example ends exactly where the building starts, so that if someone were to 
>move one of the building's nodes it would be desirable to have the parking 
>lot "adapt", then re-use the node.
>
>If however the objects have been mapped at different times by different 
>people and nobody has really paid attention to the relation between the 
>two (i.e. there might just be a little grass strip or a fence between 
>building and parking lot), then don't use the same nodes because that 
>would be making a claim about the relation between the two which has no basis.

Exactly. +1. In the case described (building and attached parking lot), it 
makes sense, as it usually does for adjacent land parcels (landuse=* closed 
ways) and administrative subdivisions (boundary=administrative closed ways) 
too. If they really are two polygons of a similar type that share a single 
interface (edge), then glue them. If they just happen to have parts that 
seem to lie in the same place, don't.

--
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>