OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Email icon Bluesky Icon Facebook Icon LinkedIn Icon Mastodon Icon Telegram Icon X Icon

Discussion

Comment from andrewpmk on 27 September 2008 at 23:42

In any case I personally am ignoring the advice of that individual. After all, the area of the actual park does not include the area between the road centerline and the road's edge.

Comment from Circeus on 27 September 2008 at 23:55

By that logic, we would have streets that have no width. I'm fine with the philosophical reasoning for it. I'm just annoyed that I've run afoul of this issue with my keyboard.

Comment from djo0012 on 29 September 2008 at 14:55

well that's my error, I agree with your point but the way I saw it was that the park finish at the street so they have the same limit. if I trace a park approximately at the side of the road I'm most of the time to far away when we see it on renderer (yeah we don't trace for renderer I know and that wasn't what I was doing since I consider a way as the road itself and not just it's middle, but I might have wrong on that...

Comment from Circeus on 29 September 2008 at 15:00

Well, the idea is that areas are bordered by the streets, so in the end it's simpler to attach the nodes to the surrounding ways from the start so as not to leave any unneeded and rather (IMHO) unaesthetic "whitespace" (the "middle" thing is a strawman: streets, unlike ways, are drawn as having actual width). I agree it's not all that intuitive (and I'm used to cleaning stuff anyway. I used to do that all the time on Wikipedia :p), but I also agree it makes for better-looking maps.

Log in to leave a comment