On 12/08/2010 04:09 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi, > IMHO, if there is no physical barrier, it's a bad idea to map the > two lanes individually. Some reasons: > 1) It renders badly. In every renderer. Spurious one-way arrows, the > road comes out looking wider, you get the extra lines down the middle, > ugly intersections...
I think one could be argued that one should not omit for the renderer.
> 2) Routers no longer know that you can u-turn anywhere.
Many jurisdictions (Oregon, for example) prohibit u-turns at controlled
intersections unless otherwise posted ("U-turn permitted" signs).
U-turns tend to be prohibited across medians anyway.
> 3) You're losing the piece of information that the two lanes are
> physically contiguous. There should be some kind of relation binding
> them together, but none has been defined, afaik.
It's been observed before that one can create a polygon like a river and
tag it "landuse=highway" for right-of-way spaces.
> 4) It's misleading to users - it looks like a divided road, when it's not.
If it has a median, it's a divided road, by definition.
> 5) Causes various inaccurate flow-on effects, like a turning circle
> being represented as a single way, rather than an "area".
highway=turning_circle should only be used on nodes, anyway.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
