On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno 28/ago/2013, alle ore 20:34, Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> > We have lots of geometry that follows roads: sidewalks, bike lanes,
> cycleways, contraflow cycleways, kerbs. Why not power?
> I can follow your argument ("who's gonna do all that dumb work of tracing
> power lines in large rural areas like in the US"), but it is preferable to
> have a distinct object for what is really something different in the real
> world.
>
> It sort of depends on your point of view. If that centerline represents
the *"road corridor"*, then attributes of the "road corridor" seem fair
game. * "It's a paved 2 lane highway, with a narrow shoulder, 55 mph, bikes
prohibited, hgv allowed, with overhead utilities"*
The moment you begin breaking things out and recording actual geometry that
model starts to break down... but that's OK. If anyone wants to map to
that level, they just need to remove the more general tagging. Full editor
support would flag the road attribute tags, if you draw a utility line
nearby ("do you want to remove this style of tagging?").
highway=residental
utilities=overhead
lanes=2
For other areas we could get a high percentage of the utility with a
fraction of the effort...
... and reduce hours of pain fixing newbie mistakes where roads were moved
outside of their utility line contexts.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
