Frederik Ramm wrote: >I think it's quite easy. If NE2 has been there to inspect the individual >intersection he has been changing, or at least thoroughly studied aerial >imagery or so for this particular intersection, then his idea of how it >should be tagged is as legit as someone else's and the issue must be >discussed/battled out for each case individually. We don't dispute the facts. (Taking the South Innerbelt example) the freeway is in a shallow valley/cutting, with ramps between the freeway and its frontage roads, and cross streets intersecting the frontage roads and passing over the freeway. The only dispute is about tagging: whether it's appropriate to use layer=-1 for that. Of course, if the freeway is layer=-1, a drainpipe that passes under the freeway would need layer=-2. And a landuse polygon would need layer=-1 only where the freeway is such, and layer=0 on both sides, or otherwise, if continuous, it would be referring to land on a structure above the freeway or land under the other streets.
>(Personally, I have no issues with a bridge being layer=0 when stuff >below it is layer=-1 - we explicitly say that layers are meant to be >relative only. Since before I joined (and, in fact, since they were created in 2008), the wiki pages for layer and key:layer have stated that 0 is for the ground level, positive numbers are for bridges, and negative numbers are for tunnels. "The bridge within a perfectly flat street should be layer=1 even if the stream is as far below it as the Grand Canyon." As I said, maybe we need a way to mark that this has no consensus (or actively not mark that it has consensus) if there is truly a lot of disagreement with it. >At the same time, if people really have been tagging >whole thoroughfares with layer=-1 that may in itself be questionable.) Here's an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/17325258/history It looks like this one, at least, was a combination of TIGER screwiness (tiger:cfcc = A33 means "Secondary and connecting road, state highways, unseparated, underpassing") and the TIGER import assigning layer=-1 to A33. My personal stance is that layer tags are only necessary when there is ambiguity, but of course I won't remove existing ones where correctly applied. A single bridge is obviously above an intersecting non-bridged way, assuming correct tagging, and we don't need layer=1 on the bridge to make that clear. This of course has no bearing on the current dispute, except in that doing this would have prevented any problems :) _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
