2012/5/23 Martin Vonwald <imagic....@gmail.com>: >> So I end up with 4 ways (highway, 2 sidewalks, cyclelane), one >> relation (area) and some nodes (lowered kerbs). Of course this is more >> complex, but you also get a whole lot more of detail, > > I see it the other way around: the increase in complexity does not > justify the increase in detail.
I fail to understand this sentence. Did you mean it the other way round? (increase in detail does not justify the increasing complexity?) >> especially if >> there is more stuff to take into account (geometry not perfectly >> parallel, barriers which are (partially) between the sidewalk and the >> road, ability to map barriers on the sidewalk only, etc. > If one would allow to change the width of the xway-parts, you could > map geometry that is not perfectly parallel. what exactly are these xways? How would they end up in the database? Is it another osm-feature (besides ways, nodes, rels), or is it a way with special tags? How do they relate to current ways? >>> If I >>> want to move the "street" I have to move seven ways. >> why would you want to move a street that you have surveyed up to this >> level of detail? I think this is hypothetical (and btw: it is 6 in >> your example). > > Japan moved a few meters not so long ago. this won't be a problem and you know this: simply move the whole of Japan, as it is an island this is trivial (if the movement is the same everywhere). >>> If I want to add >>> a junction I have to add a node to every way. >> Yes, (see above, really not likely that you map a street with 5 ways >> in every detail and then you discover that you "forgot" a whole >> junction). > I didn't forget the junction - it was just built. Facts changes! I don't see what is the particular problem (whether you have to integrate something later or map it from scratch), see below: >> Of course the junction will be more complex to map compared >> to a simple node, but this is also one of the reasons you are doing >> it: to get more details how the junction looks like. >>> If the connecting road >>> is also represented by seven ways I would have to connect... no, I >>> don't count now... a lot of ways. >> actually you would have to connect only those ways that are >> intersecting in reality, not all of them (see above). > > I know, but this is still "a lot" compared to "one". Well, won't those parallels in your "xway" somehow have to be connected or not as well? How do they magically intersect? >>> Now I want to add a route relation for a bicycle route. For this I >>> have to split the "street". >> not at all, you will have the cyclelane where you put the relation to >> and you will _not_ have to split the street. > Then I misunderstood the proposal. That would be good. I have to apologize for the current state of this proposal, it really isn't documented very well and I wouldn't even be astonished to find some contradictions in it. Definitely needs some illustrations and examples as well. > The way I think about it, it would be quite simple: just draw the > ways/lanes/barriers/whatever as they are, but they magically glue > together and the width of each part is automatically determined. Don't > ask me about details! I figured this out just a few hours ago. you will at some point have to tell the editor/database/dataconsumer which lanes and barriers and stuff belong together. I don't yet understand how you would achieve this, as you seem to refuse to use a relation for this. It is not possible to do it just spatially (at least not in some cases). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
