On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > > > John seems to combine everything into a single way and treat the > individual > > "lanes" (some of the substructures aren't even really lanes) as > > substructures. Some people want to break every lane into a separate way, > > and combine them into superstructures. Frankly, these two plans are > > essentially equivalent. > > Except that a superstructure of elements is already implemented (a > relation). > True, true, I was thinking more in the "what if we were inventing everything from scratch" context. > > Personally, I don't want either of those. I want the way to be whatever > > logical unit is used for routing. > > This seems selfish (but thanks for being honest :)). Not everyone uses > OSM for routing. The ultimate, all-inclusive goal should always be an > accurate map of what exists in the world. > Might have to change the name of the project :). Yes, not everyone uses OSM for routing. But many people do, so the information has to be maintained. And if you have the routing information, you can generate the map. I want everyone to be happy, I really do. I'm willing to listen to proposals which have every lane as a way, and proposals to have every (I don't even know how to define it) as a way. But I think you've got an uphill battle trying to implement it without losing information. Right now, like it or not, ways are being used essentially in the manner I'm suggesting we keep using them. We don't combine everything that crosses a bridge into a single way, and we don't break apart every lane into a separate way. Those saying that we should do one of these two things are the ones trying to reinvent the wheel, and the burden of proof is on them to prove that their new wheel is superior.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
