On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Barnes<n...@thebarnesfamily.eu> wrote: > Shaun McDonald wrote: >> I have seen many roundabouts split up so that the bridges can be added >> properly, so started doing it myself some time ago. > > Which begs the question.... what is the point of tagging as way as a bridge?
Because the bridge exists, and we want to map it. > Other than what the rendered map looks like (and I keep hearing that > we're not meant to be tagging for the renderer) You can tag anything you like so long as it's factually correct. > I can't see the point > of messing up It's not messing it up, it's adding more factually correct information which is widely accepted in OpenStreetMap as being useful. > a perfectly formed roundabout with all parts set with the > correct 'layer' tag when all you end up with is a roundabout which > renders as badly as this one: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.46457&lon=-1.70987&zoom=15&layers=0B00FFF If you look at every other layer it renders fine, so it's hardly a fundamental problem with the data. > Surely it's perfectly obvious that if a road goes underneath another > road, there must be a bridge involved. It took me literally milliseconds to think of a case where that's not true. > Sorry for the rant, but I've just fixed two roundabouts where the layers > were all set incorrectly at about the time somebody added those bus routes. Such are the joys of a wiki map. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
