On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. <ricoz....@gmail.com>: > > > have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where > > a highway is going over a waterway: > > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway > > > > We have been thinking about it for a while and it seems there is > > some demand which could justify it. > > > > > you mean, let's go a step back if we can't convince really everybody to map > according to the standards? ;-)
there is more to the motivation if you read the RATIONALE part. > IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to > connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality disjunct objects connected with pylons and lifts are also disjunct. So what? > It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of > the bridge to 0. as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think of a track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains. The GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are lucky, the brunnel 2-3m. Mapping this the old fashioned way will produce junk data, not precision. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
