2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> > M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the > >> center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can > >> still be determined at any point along the road from just the single > >> outline area and the way position. > > > > no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map > > areas. You can't see sidewalks as "just another lane", because they > > tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which > > usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). > > I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of > the road at any point: > > | * . . . . * | > > The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways > and the dots are other "lanes". > > If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that "lane", > we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this > particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the > sidewalk and the area outline. > > How a cross-section of a road looks will of course vary a lot along the > road - lanes, including sidewalks, might change their width, disappear > entirely etc. But that isn't a problem as long as you can determine the > road structure at each interesting point along the road. >
So your point is that we should use width=* to describe that? How about large sidewalks that get narrower were a bay of sort is reserved to cars (bus stops, parkings)? Should I break the way of the street into three parts, each with its own width? Ciao, Simone
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
