On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:34 AM stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
> > Exactly. My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on > it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large but > contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon should > be. > > At least initially, it MIGHT be. Let's acknowledge that and while we can > absorb complaints about it, I won't redact such data, it being a first > draft at completion (similar to TIGER roads and rail). We'll take decades > to clean that up, as OSM is a long-term project. Let's acknowledge that, > too: "the map is never 'done.'" > Can we finally fix two other longstanding problems, then? 1. The wiki being incorrect about not counting bicycle lanes. That's not reflective of how validators deal with lanes, how data consumers like Osmand or Magic Earth deal with lanes, or how ground truth works. The whole "but you can't fit a motor vehicle down it" argument is facile, that's what access:lanes=* and width:lanes=* is for. 2. Tagging route information on ways. It's about a decade too long at this point for ref=* on a way to be completely disconnected from the entity the tag applies to: That's why route relations exist. Biggest problem child on this at the moment: OSM's own tilesets. Let's drop rendering for ref=* on ways and just render the route relations already, this and multipolygons are why relations came to exist in the first place.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
