On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:26 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 February 2010 14:21, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 1) use tags on nodes to describe an area >> 2) use an area to describe an area >> >> Generally speaking, I predict 2) will be easier. > > Just like ways there is a lot of meta information to describe lanes, > can you change lanes, do lanes have different speed limits, sure areas > could be used for this, but the down side is you still need a way to > describe the legal direction of travel, so the problem still exists an > area alone doesn't describe everything.
Indeed. Hence why I have said multiple times that I think a way PLUS an area is a better solution than trying to mangle the idea of an area into "tags on nodes". >> Erm no. You need to know along which direction the width is measured. > > A node is a point, the direction of width would be 90 degrees to the > direction of travel. See this drawing and tell me what the width tag means: http://www.myimgs.net/images/puan.gif > So the question still remains, how to describe a road way more > accurately with a single object. Why does it have to be a single object? A road has a centerline, and it has a footprint. Why not map both...? Here's a brainstorming picture, plenty of kinks to be worked out if anyone's up for a challenge: http://www.myimgs.net/images/psgb.gif E.g. if we're mapping ways as areas, how should the intersection "area" be tagged? Anyway, I'll now refrain from distracting you from writing up your proposal :) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
