Steve Hill wrote: > On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote: > >> IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited >> anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather >> than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone. > > Sure it is - I know I can drive down a road, I don't know that I can drive > down any arbitrary highway feature.
No -- but as I said in the paragraph before the one you quoted, I would expect that something non-drivable could also be classified without driving it. Or maybe in the situation where you're using Potlatch and don't have sufficient resolution to classify a route: Even if it's not drivable, you probably don't need to travel on it to classify it. You can tell just by going and looking at it, even if it turns out to be in acccessible. "unknown" is probably good enough as an indicator that the route needs to be visited or revisited for better classification. -Alex Mauer "hawke" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
