On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > I should also have asked whether the widths of the roads are > accurately measured. Presumably we need to know the width of each road > and the distance between them, at each point. But if you want to model > the roads that accurately, probably best to keep them as separate > lanes, or use an area tag or something.
And I think that's eventually where we're going. The distance between the centerlines is only part of the equation, but I wouldn't want to throw that information away. This is all moot, however, because I now understand that you have no intention of throwing that information away. The old way of doing things would still be allowed, and in fact would not be deprecated, right? > Are there other downsides I'm missing? I think the biggest downside is that it creates two accepted ways to map the same thing. Even that, I suppose, is not a problem, if we make it clear that the old way, which contains more information, is preferable. Your initial email suggested to me that this method of mapping was superior to the old one. You made a statement, which I agree with, that "the current practice of duplicating minor roads when there is a median strip [is] pretty unsatisfactory". So I thought you were attempting to replace that current practice. You've clarified that you're not, and it looks like a router/renderer would be safe ignoring these new tags, so I guess I don't object. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
