On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:25, Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > These two variants are mapping for the renderer, > Incorrect. They are approximations to reality. Everything we map is an approximation to reality, one way or another, because the map is a representation. That they happen to render in a way that is a closer representation to what is there is a bonus. > and both add false data. > The first one can be interpreted that way. The second cannot. > The first one extends the parking over half the road. > Yes. That's what the data purist objected to. But for the average human data consumer, that is not apparent. You may object to it somehow being tagging for the renderer (it isn't) but it is relying on one error in representation hiding a different error in representation. The renderer doesn't show the true width of the carriageway - if it did then mapping the actual extent of the parking area would result in it abutting the carriageway. However, a different error in representation results in the carriageway being rendered over the parking area. The result that is rendered better represents reality on the ground and what an ordinary user expects to see. But you seem to object to maps that match what a human user would expect to see. > The second creates a service road area over half the road. There is no > service road area there, > Yes there is. It's a very wide, very short service road connecting the carriageway to the parking area. You're trying to pretend it isn't there and that there is a void between the two. > you are just trying to connect the parking to the road so it looks nice on > the map. And it does look nice, but it's false data. > It is absolutely true data. It is the same surface as the carriageway and the parking area with only lane markings to delineate it. It looks rather ugly, not nice. But it is absolutely true. Are you saying there is no way to drive from the carriageway to the parking area? If not, there is something connecting the two. That connection is a very wide, very short service road. It is you who is insisting on false data by pretending there is no road surface between carriageway and parking area. If we want to describe how you get onto street side parking, and it's not > obvious, we could use additional tags, like parking_entrance_direction=*. > Let's tag everything so that NOTHING renders and the user has to use the query tool to find out what is there. Apart from the fact that no human map user is going to see any clue about the parking entrance direction, now will the human user know that the entrance extends the whole length of the parking area. > Street side parking is a very different parking area from a big enclosed > surface parking. Some people may find it hard to park there because you > back up onto traffic, > The two examples I gave have the parking parallel with the carriageway, so there is no backing up involved. > and they may want to avoid parking there. This information is definitely > very useful. > If that information is very useful, why are you proposing tagging it in a way that is not only not rendered but doesn't give any clue about it if you use the query tool? -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
