Changeset: 62614325
Amended parking.
Closed by RathcooleRambler
Tags
changesets_count | 281 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.11.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-US |
Discussion
-
Comment from Vincent de Phily
Honestly I'm tempted to just reverse these two changesets (cf discussion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62314751), but there's no point in doing that without a discussion :
1) Looks like you used unaligned Bing imagery, which is off by a significant amount in this area. I'll let you check the wiki for an alignment tutorial, but straight away you can use the box_junction just east of the campus. Also check the other aerial imagery, as Bing isn't the best around here.
2) I you use imagery that's aligned differently from the imagery of the previous contributor, at least make make sure nearby objects are aligned relative to one another (here like you touched the parking object but nothing else, which creates visible inconsistencies).
3) Do not glue areas to ways as this is geometrically incorrect. It's ok to do that for a quick initial mapping, but not ok to do that to previously correct geometry.
4) You might disagree with this one since this is the main change you made, but the parking area covers areas that are not really parking (and misses one that is, due to alignment). To me the he clearest example is the sides of the north building, which are lined by a service road and no parking spaces. Another one I'd cut out is the very south, for the same reason. And the bit of parking at the west is pretty naturally separated from the rest.
To be clear, I wouldn't have bothered with that 4th paragraph if this was the initial version of the car park. It's not as detailed as it could be, but it's correct. But the previous version was more detailed and also correct. You threw away mapped details, and I don't really see a positive. It's one thing to simplify the OSM data structures (overnodded ways, nodes that should be glued, ways that should be combined, etc), but it's another to simplify OSM's description of the reality.
-
Comment from RathcooleRambler
The amount of parking spaces you had was outrageous. In total, I counted eight. While you could argue for the two adjacent to building two (way 623116760) and three, I see no reason for any of the other choices. The decision to create a parking area to the left of the service road in the large lot, for instance, or the decision to create two small parking lots on the right side of the large area, were illogical to me. Go to any other parking area and you'll almost definitely see one larger parking area.
-
Comment from Vincent de Phily
Please keep your outrage for serious matters. Along with terms like butchering, this makes the conversation toxic and is not a good way to interact with other contributors. It took me some time and a chat with other OSMers before being able to give you this calm reply.
I won't try to give more arguments about the benefits and validity of detailed maping. Maybe you'll realize them yourself when overall map quality has improved in Belfast, and I wish you good luck working towards that goal.
In the meantime, I'll leave that car park as a single way and just fix the alignment and glueing issues.
Cheers.
Ways (3)
Nodes (6)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |