On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:14:07PM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: > On 29/06/15 15:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > The step from 2D to 3D would add a lot of complexity on the mappers, > > narrowing down the mass of contributors potentially willing and able to > > participate. Everyone would have to deal with this: It's difficult to > > imagine introducing 3D in parallel (as long as you don't do it completely > > disconnected, i.e. a fork), because everything is connected and someone not > > aware of 3D information would damage it inadvertently as soon as he was > > starting to make 2D edits on 3D data. > > I'm not so bothered about 3D, but rather making it a little clearer on > 2D maps that one HAS to go a particular way when the road other side of > the building IS 5 stories below, and the main road is three stories > below that. People who have visited Malta will know what I am saying, > but following a satnav somewhere you don't know after a long flight ... > it would be nice if the map warned you :)
In some cases you could use embankment, natural=cliff or building=wall separating the road and the building would that work here? Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
