Here is one answer I got, Martin was so kind to put it into a diary entry: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/40993
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But for the roads, ideally, it should ideally be an area (like on the GRB of >> Vlaandereen or the PICC of Wallonia) with also the existing line to allow >> routing. I don't know, if we must change existing residential area when >> adding area for the road, because it will probably look good on the map, but >> maybe it would be a problem for people using the data ?! At least it >> shouldn't be a problem for the big highways, because they often don't have >> landuse at the moment (look at http://osmlanduse.org/ ). > > as long as you keep the current way for navigation, and just add > area:highway there is no problem. > Just follow the area:highway instructions on the wiki and the > navigation will not get broken. I experimented with in on a small area > and navigation still works. > > I contacted 2 mappers that map landuse in great detail (one in > Germany/Italy, one in Japan) and asked them for some samples. > I doubt that multipolygons are the way forward, too complex to > maintain I fear. We should look at detailed areas in e.g. Germany and > see how they do it. > > > m _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
