Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Steve Hill schrieb: JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). Relying on middle-click only is bad for those using a 1-button mouse. Invoking a context menue works for me if I hold ctrl and click. But this won't work in JOSM... Thus I vote to emulate the middle-click along these lines: first select the object(s) and then simply press 'i'. If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. This never worked for me. I always must resort to potlatch for such actions. -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Steve Hill wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways. 2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road. I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer. I prefer sharing nodes. But it is an area that needs to be fine tuned in the guides! In reality at smaller scales they are never in the same place, so *IF* the information is available to accurately plot the real area that should be used in preference to 'abuts' simply dropping to the shared model when the information is not accurate? Adding footpath and crossing information to maps is another aspect where the physical width of the road becomes important and where - like rivers - area may become an attractive alternative! Overlapping ways allow a cleaner data model and saves nodes. But editing such ways is quite a hassle. There is currently no function to split nodes so that ways can be separated again. So if the border of the area needs to be changed, the complete area has to be redrawn (at least to my knowledge). JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. Some means of restoring a split WILL be needed in the future. I'd even go as far as to say that using node elements to build ways and areas is the cause of an unnecessary problem and that the node data for them should be integral to each object. However I can see the arguments either way. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Lester Caine wrote: But it is an area that needs to be fine tuned in the guides! In reality at smaller scales they are never in the same place This depends what you are mapping. For example, I have used shared nodes on beaches - below the high water mark I have mapped a beach with a water=tidal tag, above the high water mark I have mapped a nontidal beach. Where the tidal and nontidal beaches join, they share nodes - this reflects reality since there really is no gap between tidal and nontidal bits of beach. Similarly, where beaches change from sand to rock, there is no gap and so the nodes should be shared. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Hi, consider the following scenario: A residential area is bordered by a road. Typically I find two approaches in the OSM data set: 1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways. 2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road. I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer. Overlapping ways allow a cleaner data model and saves nodes. But editing such ways is quite a hassle. There is currently no function to split nodes so that ways can be separated again. So if the border of the area needs to be changed, the complete area has to be redrawn (at least to my knowledge). Best regards Stefan (coomba) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways. 2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road. I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer. I prefer sharing nodes. Overlapping ways allow a cleaner data model and saves nodes. But editing such ways is quite a hassle. There is currently no function to split nodes so that ways can be separated again. So if the border of the area needs to be changed, the complete area has to be redrawn (at least to my knowledge). JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Hi, A residential area is bordered by a road. Plesae read the thread area topology which is about exactly this topic and has been started 4 days ago in this mailing list ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
