[OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way

Matt Williams lists at milliams.com
Mon Jan 31 15:36:25 GMT 2011


On 31 January 2011 15:44, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/1/31 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
>>> I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than
>>> colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways
>>> for areas that do actually touch.
>>
>> Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case
>> that the polygons really do touch
>
> Agreed, although I'd like to point out that in a case where one of the
> features is physical and one is virtual (for instance, a road and an
> administrative boundary), I wouldn't classify that as features which
> "touch", and I think parallel ways *are* a viable solution.
>
> To wit, I'd say parallel ways are the proper solution for TIGER
> boundaries which coincide with TIGER lines.  Especially when the way
> is a dual carriageway.  Fixing dual carriageways which share nodes
> with TIGER boundaries sucks.  Fortunately most TIGER boundaries
> themselves suck, so a simple fix is to just delete the TIGER boundary.
>
> (Note that there's no problem with two *boundaries* sharing nodes or
> (preferably) ways.  I'm talking about a road sharing a way with a
> boundary, which maybe is okay sometimes, but sometimes definitely is
> not.)

The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative
boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example. In this case
I'd say that the boundary and way should share nodes. However, I agree
that this might get messy in the case of a dual-carriageway.

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com



More information about the talk mailing list