The nice thing about osm is that there is no such thing as a "final goal" in terms of mapping output but rather the activity as such is just plain fun.
It's interesting to see that highways=* are being started to tag as areas - if I remember right, this (as well as the controversies accompanying it) was predicted by some new year's outlook. I personally don't see currently too much motivation in doing so, but let's see where it leads. Again, the nice thing is to see the map evolve and I don't see any objection to having the two mapping practices (road as way and/or area) applied.
Also, I don't consider it problematic to have different level of details rather than having "consistency" (regarding the level of detail, I assume). On contrary, having a block mapped with incredible detail just next to an area not mapped may be reason for another person to get involved. It can't be the objective to have a "complete" map with consistent level of detail - we are no competitor of Swisstopo.
And to conclude: With regard to mapping highways as ways and/or areas I don't see problems of coexistence. In term of changing or editing data it never hurts to get in contact with interested mappers at the earliest point in time. And finally, c'est le ton qui fait la musique!
Marc
On 05.09.2011, at 11:03, Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello Simone,
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
This is the biggest issue of OSM : never take a decision => many unsolved conflict (and no common goal).
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm not sure that I understand well, the first is to create one way inner the roads with the landuse, the second is to cut all the reads and create a multypolygone with all the segment to create the landuse.
Personally I see to other methods:
- create a way at 10 cm to the road with the landuse (I think it's the worth)
- create a new way on the top of the road (same nodes) to create the landuse
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
For me this this method have to big issue:
- If we have a road who pass over an other with a bridge many people
create for the landuse a node at the intersection, and that mean that we can jump with our car from the bridge to the don road :(
- Some people think that too complicate.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
That the too method is OK is one point, but witch one is the best (final goal) ?
Simon
CU and thanks for your resounds Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch