That makes sense -- the top and bottom of a climbing route should be two nodes separated by a way which indicates that it's fairly difficult to travel between the two. On our 2D map they'll be nearly on top of each other, which is correct but a bit difficult to visualise. Perhaps the ele=x m tag would be useful here - so that if someone actually tries creating a 3D map of a crag they'll have data to work with...
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Nick wrote: > > > It's very difficult to know what to do with climbing routes without > > truly 3-dimensional mapping - that said your suggestion sounds feasible. > > Having thought more about this, my proposal has a problem: There is no way > to show the difference between a path leading to the bottom of a route and > the path leading to the top of the route. I'm starting to think that for > routes which do have a path to the top we need to have a node for both the > top and bottom with a way between them, even though a lot of the time > these nodes will be practically on top of each other... > > - Steve > xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nexusuk.org/ > > Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
