Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #23126, comment 5


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2024-02-08T18:04:42+01:00 (12 months ago)
Author:
BartekChom

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #23126, comment 5

    v1 v2  
    33For very micro mapping I can also imagine marking pieces with different smoothness.
    44
    5 Besides, taking values directly from an area is much simpler although I have to agree that when an algorithm wants to use such details (even just to display them - directly available data would show too little), looking for data in contained highways is a small complication. On the other hand, making smoothness consistent for all highways crossing given area:highway requires effort too. Maybe marking the smoothness of `area:highway=footway` is better than recognising which `highway=footway` (The one with the longer length in the area? It is enough to recognise EW below.) is relevant when a EW foot way with good smoothness crosses a SN foot way with excellent smoothness.
     5Besides, taking values directly from an area is much simpler although I have to agree that when an algorithm wants to use such details (even just to display them - directly available data would show too little), looking for data in contained highways is a small complication. On the other hand, making smoothness consistent for all highways crossing given area:highway requires effort too. Maybe tagging the smoothness of `area:highway=footway` is better than recognising which `highway=footway` (The one with the longer length in the area? It is enough to recognise EW below.) is relevant when a EW foot way with good smoothness crosses a SN foot way with excellent smoothness.
    66{{{
    77      |
    … …  
    1818}}}
    1919(c is a corner, the rectangle is `area:highway=footway`, two lines are `highway=footway`)
    20 (Before our data becomes perfect, we should cut the SN and mark the part at the crossing with `smoothness=good`, right? Do you have a better idea?)
     20(Before our data becomes perfect, we should cut the SN and tag the part at the crossing with `smoothness=good`, right? Do you have a better idea?)
    2121
    2222---
    2323
    24 As for `area:highway=steps` + `step_count=*`, my new https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1204231251 is an example of an interesting case that was too unclear for me to mark. The whole `area:highway=steps` arguably has a given number of steps, but some paths have less. Actually, what is the area for `step_count=1`? For `step_count=2`, is there one step with two edges?
     24As for `area:highway=steps` + `step_count=*`, my new https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1204231251 is an example of an interesting case that was too unclear for me to tag. The whole `area:highway=steps` arguably has a given number of steps, but some paths have less. Actually, what is the area for `step_count=1`? For `step_count=2`, is there one step with two edges?
    2525
    2626---