2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com>: > > It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of > the bridge to 0 > Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely. >
We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), you can always create more abstracted maps from precise geodata, while the other way round it is not possible. > In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not > represented by areas. > no, their geometric representation is a line, but their width is (or can be) added with a tag like width and lanes, of which the latter defaults to 2 (for non-links) if not added explicitly. > The question should be whether the value of the data is significantly > degraded if some very short bridges are represented as nodes. > OK. Can you explain how long a "very short bridge" should be? What is the benefit of this kind of mapping style? In this context I'd like to point out that GPS precision is not the limit, you do not have to take 2 waypoints at the beginning and end of the bridge and the result will become your bridge, automatically, usually you will interpret these waypoints and will estimate the bridge length and represent it according to your estimate, so I do not think a 3 meters long bridge will result in a 45 meters long zigzag in your mapping, just because you had bad GPS reception under the tree canopy and made a break on the bridge ;-) cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
