On 08.09.2011 20:12, Stéphane Brunner wrote:

Je répond d'un bloc car je n'ai rien a dire sur les détails, je vais juste parle le la distinction carte/plan, car c'est bien le nœud du problème,

Stéphane,

I'm not sure if you are getting it. You might want to have another look at the details in the three pictures that I send yesterday. Which one comes closest to your ideal of a plan? And which one comes second?

Before, you mentioned something about "compromis (ce que j'ai déjà fais avec de nombreux contributeurs)". I'm wondering what might have happend to their motivation and productivity.

For three years, there has been a new and popular subway station in the center of Lausanne and none of the local mappers bothered to map its surroundings or cared about pedestrian routing. And there were not a lot of paths in the parc de l'Hermitage and the foret de Sauvabelin until I put them there. And in the Bois du Jorat there were plenty of duplicate and unconnected tracks and paths (Potlatch mapping?), with a lot of parts (still) missing. Those were the areas where I mapped and that I cared for. And those were the areas where I took the liberty to use highways as borders of area multipolygons.

You on the other hand seem to take the liberty to tear up white space whereever it pleases you, because you feel that you are right. You create the white space for its own sake, because in the end you don't even bother to subsequently map the highways as areas.

You don't need to lecture me that Riponne_3 is more "correct" than Riponne_2. You got it your way already. You need to find now some mappers on the ground who are willing to go beyond Riponne_1 in other places.

Thorsten