Hi, On 23 February 2010 05:10, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: > To do area mapping without also doing the traditional OSM vector > mapping of those roads just seems like low-grade vandalism to me. Why > would a mapper choose to say, "I'm going to make a really detailed > representation of road width and corner radii, that looks great on one > renderer at one zoom level, and I just don't care that it breaks > routing, breaks street names, and takes my time away from mapping > other roads, or addresses, or crosswalks." I don't get it. It seems > a very limited view of the map for one specific, perhaps selfish > implementation.
It may be someone's very limited view, but more likely it is a desire to represent reality more exactly and someone could as well say the centrelines mapping we do now is low-grade vandalism. The centrelines can be derived from the outline of the asphalt surface + the paint on it (deriving them is exactly what we do when we map) and the centreline becomes redundant if you look at it this way. The oneway= attribute is an unideal approximation of the information actually carried by the streetsigns at the entry of the street or other signals that we could map instead and have the tools process this information instead. It would be more heavy computationally but at some point someone will say what we did until now was tagging for the router or renderer or the other tools. I agree with Anthony that the area mapping is part of the future but I don't think it will be called area mapping, it will be called a full 3d model of stuff on earth and the areas will be available by just projecting the model on the surface (the objects that don't move part of the model anyway). Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
