In your letter dated Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:25:53 -0400 you wrote:
Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But seriously, what I expect is a set of rules of the form if in-germany
then highway=trunk implies oneway=yes.
This leads to a nightmare. Those rules would need to be implemented
in every
In your letter dated Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:34:48 +0100 you wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm a bit worried about routing software sending people the wrong way up
a dual-carriage way. I very much prefer to default to a safe state. And that
means either requiring explicit yes/no
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Philip Homburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think that a relation should be used to imply oneway=yes. It's just
too risky.
In a country where just all trunk roads are dual-carriage ways, defaulting
to oneway=no is just too risky.
having different
In your letter dated Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:07:40 +0200 you wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Philip Homburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think that a relation should be used to imply oneway=yes. It's just
too risky.
In a country where just all trunk roads are dual-carriage ways,
2008/10/8 Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't think this is about local interpretations. It is about having
safe defaults.
Agreed 100%
Of course, adding oneway=no to all trunk ways that do not have a oneway tag
can be done by a script.
Clearly it could be - but it certainly
Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In your letter dated Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:07:40 +0200 you wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Philip Homburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think that a relation should be used to imply oneway=yes. It's just
too risky.
In a country where just
2008/10/9 Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This leads to a nightmare. Those rules would need to be implemented
in every tool that works with OSM data (and cares about oneway
properties).
It's a nightmare we're probably going to have to address at some point
if we want to do good routing.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Dermot McNally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
So we can solve this problem right now by deciding that a better list
of implied-one-way highway ways is:
those with junction=roundabout
those that are members of a dual_carriageway relation
That will cover any
For trunk roads, it might be just a safe default to assume that the way is
oneway, unless tagged explicitly as single-carriage (oneway=no).
Another safe option is for routing application to ignore all motorway,
motorway_link, trunk, and trunk_link ways that are not explicitly tagged as
either
2008/10/7 Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think local norms are fine. However that requires a lot of localization
work.
But a global norm is better than a local one.
Localization is likely to happen anyway when people start displaying speed
limits. Or do you want to tag even the
2008/10/7 Ed Loach [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is a roundabout where you can go either way around the big
roundabout, and at each junction with a road there is a
mini-roundabout. When these sort of roundabouts, often nicknamed
Magic Roundabouts
Dermot wrote:
So we can solve this problem right now by deciding that a
better list
of implied-one-way highway ways is:
those with junction=roundabout
Funnily enough we were discussing roundabouts on a non-OSM related
list yesterday, and I looked up Greenstead Roundabout in Colchester
2008/10/7 Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For trunk roads, it might be just a safe default to assume that the way is
oneway, unless tagged explicitly as single-carriage (oneway=no).
People can keep saying that, but it won't make it true :)
For me, there are very few cases where oneway
In your letter dated Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:04:44 +0100 you wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Homburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For trunk roads, it might be just a safe default to assume that the way is
oneway, unless tagged explicitly as single-carriage (oneway=no).
People can keep saying that, but it won't make
2008/10/6 Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephen Hope [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bad assumption. This may be the case in parts of Europe and the USA,
but certainly not in most parts of the world.
Maybe not in most parts of the worlds, but most trunk roads. ;-)
I know that the German
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There will still be people who miss all that and keep on tagging as
before, but I don't see a reasonable way of avoiding that - except not
changing implied values.
You could change editors so as to automatically display the default
value of missing
16 matches
Mail list logo
