Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:09:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Randy" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-newbies] Interior ring with Potlatch?
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <hfrdh6$mhs$[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Steve Bennett wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Randy
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>JOSM Validator has flagged one of those in my area. I think the tips of
>>the "C" may be overlapping a little, but I haven't gotten around to fixing
>>it yet. A multipolygon is, I believe, the best practice in this case,
>>since your "pseudo wall" isn't really an exterior part of the building.
>Oh, I didn't know they had to be. What do you do when there's a
>complex of clearly distinct buildings that touch each other? I thought
>tagging them separately (but sharing ways) was the right thing to
Concede. "Exterior" was not a good word to use here, I was being lazy. How
about "building boundary demarcation"? (Whether you agree with the intent
of the statement or not.) Even though the building will be rendered as a
whole (with a hole), the underlying data will indicate a discontinuity.
Regarding using a single way for multiple purposes, this is done quiet
often, and I think very appropriate. However, I think the mapper should
consider the potentially common boundary when doing this. Are either side
of the boundary mutually exclusive? That's definitely a case for a common
boundary. If the purposes of the potentially common way are unrelated,
e.g. a highway and an area boundary, then is the area boundary likely to
move if the highway moves? If yes, use a common boundary. If the two uses
are not exclusive, and the relocation of one will not necessarily require
the relocation of the other, then I think separate ways should be used.
That will certainly ease the effort of the mapper who may eventually have
to move one and not the other.
Where two buildings share a wall, it's called a "party wall" or "demising wall" to distinguish it from an interior wall or exterior wall. Just in case you were curious.