2008/8/26 Mark Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is 'mapping for renderers' any worse than 'mapping for routers'?
both are bad i think > Step back from the "we're going to use it for routing busses" approach a > moment; a fair few users may wish to print a map, so the renderers need > to do this right. I will prefer to see the bus-stops pass on the sat-nav > map as reference as I drive by them. I might like warning of busses > likelihood of stopping. > > My main driver on this is that they are roadside features, not highway > features. As I said, like pubs, postoffices, etc. This is the real > world, mapping what's on the ground, bus stops are not like > mini-roundabouts or traffic lights. well, it's a representation of the real world, and idealised, yet imperfect one at that i'm not sure why they're roadside features, rather than highway features. the bus stops *on* the highway (which includes the path, as we discussed earlier). at no point does it leave the highway the *sign* is on the roadside. we're not mapping signs. maps and signs do the same thing, but in different ways - they contain information about a mapworthy feature, but each are not mapworthy themselves. we're not mapping signs > Finally, yes I think the above is right for house numbers as well. My > house is next to the way; not even on the implied footpath, it's an > off-road feature. I think this is true of most... absolutely. ideally, there would be a drive from the road to the parking area, then a path from that to the door _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk