On Feb 11, 2008 8:58 AM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman wrote: > > Big +1 on this proposal. That's exactly what I've been thinking about > > lately. It's stupid to chop up nice long ways just because the speed > > limit changes or the way happens to cross a bridge. > > Isn't this exactly why relations were invented? To unite a set of ways > with a common attribute? Or have I misunderstood? > > Gerv > > I think it depends on the perspective you take. To me, the nodes and ways should follow the physical world as much as possible--the road didn't change just because the speed limit changed, so why chop it up? Either way we go, it's going to require good editor support for this, but to me, it's easier to manage one long way than to hunt down and select each constituent way if I want to change some aggregate property (I've done some editing of the TIGER data). I think it also does more to encourage an iterative, incremental approach to data refinement--first get the physical tracks down, then add speed limits, lanes, surface information, etc. I know, it would be great if all that stuff was done at once, but putting an emphasis on getting the physical ways in place first does more to expand OSM coverage and make visual progress to the renderers, and makes OSM more useful to more people, sooner.
Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
