|
I've read some comments about adjoining landuse that share a fence. I've been doing it by not sharing nodes at all and having the landuse slightly smaller, just a metre off the fence so the landuse areas and the fence way are completely sepearate. I would like to know … is this wrong? Or is it an acceptable way to do it? If it is preferred that landuse extends right up to the fence and shares the fence nodes then I'll join the ways back together. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.26661&lon=149.04193&zoom=17 I've tried doing the shared nodes thing but it gets messy for things like sections of shared boundary that aren't fenced. I can join nodes (and ways) later but I haven't yet determined what the unwanted consequences of doing so are. |
|
This is a much discussed topic. Your approach is valid, but letting the landuse "touch" the fence is equally valid. Different mappers have different styles. See also the answers to the question "Should the edges of landuse=* or boundary=* areas share points with streets that form their borders?". 2
Thanks, I have read around and people do have different ways of doing it but just wanted to make sure that what I was doing wasn't "wrong" and that consumers of OSM data aren't confounded by contributors doing it like this. It's just easier for me to work with them as separate objects, although it would be cleaner to reduce nodes and have zero gap between landuse areas.
(25 Apr '13, 09:39)
NathanaelB
|
