On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Perhaps we do need to fork the project and create openmap.org so we can >> get away from a fundamental belief that 'the road rules'? But all I am >> 'shouting for' is that there are hooks to maintain a hierarchy of detail as >> one moves from a macro to micro view. If people only want a 'road map' or >> 'cycleway map', then that is not a problem, but it should not then prevent >> the fine detail from being maintained below it? > > If the micro view is on a separate data layer then I've absolutely no > problem with it (I just don't think it's the core project).
Uh-oh, I don't think it's worth arguing about what the "core" of OSM is. Lester's right - for micro-mapping, it's "not about 'catching on' but rather about 'making provision for'". Richard, I think it's possible to make provision for micro-mapping on the same data layer. There's just a few issues to work through. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
