What is your problem with having way sections between each intersection
instead of one long way?
The AND data in the Netherlands has ways that go only from intersection
to intersection, we already split the ways at bridges, tunnels, maxspeed
changes, name changes etc. Apparently the method of
What is your problem with having way sections between each
intersection
instead of one long way?
I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've
always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant section. But I
can understand that there is a bit of an issue with doing such a
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:01:20 +0100, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
What is your problem with having way sections between each
intersection
instead of one long way?
I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've
always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:01:20 +0300, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
What is your problem with having way sections between each
intersection
instead of one long way?
I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've
always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant
Ed Loach wrote:
I don't know how
routing engines work out when one way at a junction has priority
over another (or whether they even bother - I guess the best
available at present is to compare names and/or refs).
Why do we need to know which way has priority? Yes it is nice to know
some
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, kaerast kaer...@qvox.org wrote:
Why do we need to know which way has priority? Yes it is nice to know
some times, but no other maps show this and it just isn't necessary. It
tends to be slower roads which you need to give way on, and these are
already given
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
some stuff in the talk page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction
Anyone care to provide an explanation?
The reason I ask is
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
some stuff in the talk page
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
some stuff in the talk page
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
don't do turn restrictions at the
SteveC wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is
one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction
could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way.
This of course doesn't
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com
wrote:
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:34, Tobias Knerr wrote:
SteveC wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is
one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction
could apply when coming from either of the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 14:45, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 14:25, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is
one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction
could apply when
2009/4/23 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com
wrote:
I don't see a
SteveC schrieb:
Ok so in that case... why don't we make best practice to split your way
A in to two directions, rather than hundreds of little ways?
You mean something like that
^A1 |A2
| |
| |
| | B
---*-*--
| |
| |
| v
with
If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself,
it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for
the consumer to work out, in that it would have to decide which way the
two nodes were on.
|A
*a
|
c| b
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:56:09 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/4/23 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On
2009/4/23 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:56:09 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Or something like this is common:
B C
\ |
\ |
\|
|
|
A
where the straight line is considered a turn even though it's
David Earl schrieb:
If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself,
it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it?
There was a proposal that suggested exactly that, xrestriction:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Relation:xrestriction
Hasn't been used a lot.
On 23 Apr 2009, at 22:56, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
2009/4/23 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com
wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:16 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself,
it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for
the consumer to work out, in that it would have to decide which way the
22 matches
Mail list logo
