On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:46 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Again, are we trying to make a map look photo realistic? > > To me a map is a set of abstract ideas that express information about > reality that can't be seen from photo imagery. Mapping road widths can > be done by estimate based on a number of factors that are both vector > and meta information, I fail to see how presenting an area will > actually present any more information to a person. If they want such > information and if there is aerial imagery they can just switch tile > sets. > Among other things, I want to be able to produce http://mytechnews.info/b/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nuvi-lane-assistance.jpg That's not photorealism, and it's not raster data, but that gore area is best mapped as an area (the lanes could be linear, but that would require a bit more OSM redesign). On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:49 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 1 February 2010 01:43, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > Maps. If a bunch of treetops are blocking the view of a road, we'd show > the > > road, not the treetops. How is that even relevant? > > The current line of thinking almost goes so far as to map the trees > and tag them layer=1 etc... > Which still has nothing to do with photorealism.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging