Anthony wrote: >On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Randy ><rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used >>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building, >>roof attached to a building, etc. > >Would that be used for this: >http://images.loopnet.com/xnet/mainsite/attachments/viewImage.aspx?FileGuid=C138EA3D-33CE-4695-AA32-11C4C9C097EA&Extension=jpg&Width=631&Height=421 > >Currently mapped as: >http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.078461&lon=-82.505419&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF > >In this case there are four separate buildings (the two middle ones >are shown in the image, and there are two others with smaller covered >walkways).
I would say, yes. But, I'd also map the roof, so that the road wasn't just dashed across the ground. There needs to be a tag for this type of structure, and I haven't found one. "building=shelter" would seem appropriate, but I think the Germans have sewed that one up for camping shelters. Possibly just "building=roof" would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it). If there is ever an effort to map the multiple layers of a building, this could also be used as the top layer. Or, for those who prefer not to differentiate building type in the key value, "building=yes, [shelter=roof, level=roof, or roof=yes]". I think level=roof, would lend itself to a better generalization of building interiors. (other levels could be numbers, zero not necessarily aligned to the exterior layer=0) But, this is all material for a different thread, isn't it? Meanwhile, back on subject, since there are two buildings and the roof arching over the street is clearly not integral to either one, you could map that with layers, only, with the roof over the road as layer=1 and the road and buildings as layer=0 (default). But, you could also, in that case, do the "forbidden", and add "covered=yes" to the road, to aid the renderers. I use the quoted "forbidden", because I agree that we should map to reality rather than for the renderers, but when we can add information that still tracks reality, but can also aid the renderers, I believe that is also appropriate. (However, I don't want to get into an ideology war on that topic.) Regarding your current mapping, I think that it is useful information to tell the user that a road or pathway is covered, rather than just ignoring it, since it can, for example, help a driver in planning where to drop off or pickup a passenger, in inclement weather, or help a pedestrian to plan a walking route to avoid the weather. -- Randy _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
