Clifford Snow wrote:
When editing, it is time consuming to make changes to one when the two are connected. Leaving the two connect can lead to problems if the editor doesn't see that they inadvertently moved the other.
Roads are not a special case here ... any way elements that co-exist with other polygon boundary ways can be equally problematic. Bundling relations into this adds another layer of problems which make them as difficult to manage as simple polygons. I have said this before, but it does really need to be looked at a lot closer ...
What we need here is to add a 'polygon' which consists of a combination of ways in much the same way as 'nodes' get combined. This is essentially a relation rather than an area, but I will repeat the example I've given before.
There is a substantial amount of micro mapping going on now, so for example a field or property polygon may well have one boundary as a road, two as fences and the fourth as a hedge. Since the way making up the polygon can't be used for the boundary elements one ends up having to trace them, creating multiple elements overlapping. Directly related to this thread, the next step may be to add 'say' the dry stone wall that in reality divides the field from the road! Pulling the boundary ways and polygon apart to add the extra detail is currently painful? If however the 'field' simply consisted of 4 closed ways, one could postulate that selecting the road element of the field/property would allow the option to 'parallel' but maintain the other boundary elements to remain with the separated field rather than having to be broken out individually. Going on from this editing operation ... the new way will probably have an access point which could not previously be mapped ON the road, but can now be identified as a link off the road.
The remaining problems pulling this element apart from the originally linked components is perhaps 'landuse=agricultural' polygon which may well be overlaying the field polygon as well! Should the landuse polygon remain using the road way as it's boundary or should it switch to the separated field way boundary? That would be allowed by maintaining the landuse detail with one or other of the new separate ways. I see this as a stepping stone maintaining the integrity of the larger area polygons that are currently handled as 'relations' but are more accurately closed way polygons and the same new tools that would manage fine detail polygons could also be used to maintain the integrity of larger 'polygons' such as administrative boundaries or larger landuse areas that are currently created from a large number of conventional polygons?
It is not unusual these days to find several ways all overlaying one another, and that can probably be simply extracted from the data? They are using the same nodes but often the real reason for the 'boundary' is not easily identified and adding that data currently requires an additional way for say 'fence', where simply adding that tag to a single multiply used way would be a lot more accurate? There will still be situations where a simple polygon is appropriate, such as perhaps dropping buildings within a property boundary, and 'semi-detached' properties would have a common element with the boundary polygon, and additional tools may be required to insert these fine details into the larger elements, but that simply ensures that the data integrity is maintained? Deleting or modifying elements that ARE being used by higher level areas should be easier to identify?
-- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
