On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ross Scanlon <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: > > I have not changed the current intersection in osm but here are two screen > shots of the intersection in josm. > > http://www.4x4falcon.com/osm/junctions/intersection_messy.jpg > http://www.4x4falcon.com/osm/junctions/intersection_simple.jpg > > The second shows exactly the same from a map point of view as the first and > also routes correctly. > > It's not necessary to map all the turning lanes and is much easier to read on > the screen and if printed out in paper form. > > If you call this intersection up in garmin, navit, gpsdrive etc when in > routing mode it's a real mess and becomes unusable.
This is an interesting example. The "_messy" and "_simple" techniques, of course, could just as well be described as "_complete" and "_approximate", etc. The real issue here is "what are we mapping" - and with the intersection example, the issue seems to be whether the ways should accurately correspond to geographic reality (_messy), or not (_simple). Personally, I think they should (geographic reality is important in a map! :P), and hence I can see the appeal of _messy. However, Ross, if the _messy example really is "unusable", this is a problem. Ross, what exactly do you mean by "unusable"? Note also that any problem with _messy does not then infer that _simple is a good approach either - it's clearly an approximation, which is fine in the interim, but sooner or later mappers are going to want to add more detail, and they surely should have a way to do so without making intersections "unusable". _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
