On 5/10/2012 12:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/5/10 Nathan Edgars II<nerou...@gmail.com>:
On 5/10/2012 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
explicit geometry
Why?
Because it gives you more information (e.g. the radius of the circle,
or a more detailed shape in case it isn't a circle). It also gives
more detailed information about the shape and the position of the
streets that connect at the junction. (in reality they do not meet all
in a single point).
If the streets meet at a single point before the roundabout is plopped
down, and no new right-of-way is needed, they still meet at a single
point after. Example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.516621,-81.372235&spn=0.004195,0.008256&gl=us&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=28.516619,-81.37239&panoid=t0koZzwawvfnkjyszuf29g&cbp=12,92.3,,0,10
Radius can be specified on the node (and radius of what? The island? The
outside? Halfway in between? Measuring the way gives the latter,
arguably the least useful of the three).
Finally if you wanted to map what is inside the circle you don't have
a serious option without having explicit geometry, especially if it is
composed of more than one part.
This is not true. What if you want to map the surfaces of a "true"
mini-roundabout? You'd draw a circle of brick or whatever the center is,
with the roads passing right through it.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
