On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 13:11, Jean-Marc Liotier <j...@liotier.org> wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) > stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping > everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we > go for it now ?
It's good to see that I've stirred up some discussion on the issue, that was the intent. Generally speaking if you or anyone else wants to go for something topical with OpenStreetMap that interests you should just do it, whether that something mapping highways, mountain ranges or everything as an area. If you pick your tags carefully you can add areas to everything in your city and not clash with anyone else's use of the data. If you want to experiment with this you can do so now by editing e.g. Rottnest island, it's small and has z23 imagery from NearMap you can use: http://osm.org/go/swwdZ5u-- However I agree with others in this thread that this isn't something we should be generally recommending to people. For most uses of the map it's just fine to have points and lines to represent POIs and ways. It's only if you want to do fringe things like accurately model a pedestrian intersection that area mapping gives you anything tangible for your efforts. It's also worth pointing out that we're already doing area mapping, just not for everything. We try to map things like landuse, buildings, sports pitches etc. as areas, mapping smaller and smaller things as areas is a natural progression from what we're currently doing. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
