On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ross Scanlon <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: > >> This is an interesting example. The "_messy" and "_simple" techniques, >> of course, could just as well be described as "_complete" and >> "_approximate", etc. > > No _messy is over mapped and _simple is accurate.
This is subjective and, as I said, depends on "what we are mapping". E.g. IF we are mapping the "centrelines of paths of travel" in terms of geographic location, clearly _messy is more accurate/complete. But that's a big IF. I'm not saying _messy is better, I'm just saying it's not *necessarily* worse - it all depends on the goal and the definition of a "way". > Additional information like turning lanes etc needs to be included in > relations etc or other tags. Yes, fair enough. But what if someone wants to mark the geographic locations of these "turning lanes etc"? Then we go to something line highway=lane, I guess. But that's off-topic here. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
