On 09/01/11 10:34, Lester Caine wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But why write routers for the one case thats
> theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only
> possible, but already in existance?
I don't care how the routers are written. I care about people wrecking
the data by merging dupes.
And assuming that no nodes at different elevations but the same
coordinates are allowed is just crass.
Look people, this really is very simple and I have no idea why this
thread has managed to go on so long...
OpenStreetMap has, and always has had, a topological model. If two
physical things are connected in real life then they should be connected
in OSM by making them share a node. If they don't then that is a bug in
the data that should be fixed.
If two things which are not physically connected in the real world are
sharing a node in the database then that is a bug in the data which
should be fixed.
Routing programs should rely on the topological data that we provide and
not guess that things which are close are connected.
People merging duplicate nodes should not do so blindly and should check
what they are doing - in many cases that may mean having to do a
physical survey or examine aerial imagery to verify the situation on the
ground.
Unfortunately the duplicate nodes map seems to encourage people to go
round blindly merging which is why I don't particularly like it. It was
noticeable that when I was using it and deliberately leaving some near
me alone because I didn't know the real situation that other people
would just come round and merge them anyway.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
