Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I'm opposing this approach of just tagging different lanes to one way > as this gets too complicated in complex situations (I know situations > with more than 18 "lanes"). I'd prefer to get to a > map-all-lanes-and-dividers-as-separate-ways-approach and then > recombine them with a relation
Which is too complicated in simple situations. Maybe "one approach fits all" just doesn't work. Honestly, I don't think any solution that /requires/ lanes to be mapped as ways can be successful, it will cause significant additional work when it comes to junctions, to moving ways and other editing operations. Neither do I think mappers should be required to use relations for simple cases. To me, the most sensible solution would be one that allows representation by a single way with the highway tags and several tags referring to individual lanes (in a way that doesn't even require you to add all lanes - you might only be interested in adding some detail to that cycle lane, for example). At the same time, the solution might offer the /option/ to split lanes off the collective highway (i.e. map them as own ways) and link them to the highway using a single relation as well. I believe it fits the project's general spirit to allow mappers to choose their level of detail (and other mappers to increase it if they are ready to invest the time). Lod steps could be described as 1. road without lane detail 2. road with partial lane data (think cycleway=lane) 3. road with full lane data, but no lane geometry 4. road with full lane data and partial lane geometry (e.g. individual ways only for pavements and bicycle lane, but not for the perfectly parallel car lanes) 5. road with full lane data and geometry Allowing only separate ways would take away the choices #3 and #4 and limit #2 to the sort of tags we already use (i.e. no proper ordering, no sub-tags for lanes). Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
