On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 13:56 David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
> On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote: > > I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as > lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and > it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the > highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be > mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the > intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are > mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as > a node at the intersection of the centre lines). > > I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line. > If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed > mapping. > > I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and > tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points. > However there is an intersection between two lines on the same level (the centreline and the thalweg) which is suitable for tagging as a node. It's a bit like mapping highway crossings. Or maybe railway level crossings - but do we map those as a way or area yet? _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
