On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: >> >> Without good editor support, mapping highways as areas is already >> quite cumbersome. > > It's not so bad, for areas with good aerial imagery (I wouldn't call > tracing "cumbersome"). And yes, not everywhere has good aerial > imagery, but then again not everyone will be mapping areas :) > What's "good"? I tried it at z19, and it looked terrible, until I figured out the "parallel way" trick.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:03 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wonder how much work it would be if you could draw the way and then >> stretch it sideways to fill out the extact area you wanted covered and >> then the editor simply attaches the width of the way as a tag etc. > > Nice idea, BUT then you are limited to a series of rectangles. You can do curves that way. It's effectively the same algorithm as the "parallel way" in Potlatch, except you wouldn't have to connect the two ways together manually. The calculus of how we get two ways with different lengths to be "parallel" is eluding me, but whatever that algorithm is, that's the one that makes sense. I believe the answer is that technically, the lines aren't really "parallel". Is there another term for it? Does anyone know what I mean? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
