> http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=45.418666&lng=-122.321563&zoom=16&directions=45.41881686582581,-122.32349395751953,45.4324308667588,-122.36778259277344&travel=car&styleId=1
> A good example of a place where dual carriageways should be used. > > Notice the double-double yellow lines separating the two > > directions of traffic. > Definately. > The road should never have been modeled as only 1 way in the first > place. > The router was absolutely right. The road was wrong. No, I don't agree; this is not an obvious dual carriageway. You CAN turn both left and right leaving the highway; the middle lane is a left-turn lane in both directions, crossing the opposite side. You just can't turn left entering the highway. An that is just this one crossing. The very next intersection at http://nroets.dev.openstreetmap.org/demo/index.html?lat=45.40876&lon=-122.30162&zoom=17 is just a simple meeting of two roads, as are most of the rest of the crossings as the road heads east. Are you suggesting that the road should change back and forth from single way to dual ways, everywhere there is an onramp lane? Are other places changing from single to dual carriage ways back and forth everytime the paint stripes change? That doesn't make any more sense to me than adding "no left turn" in a place where the link approaches at a small angle of a few degrees and you are supposed to merge left onto the highway. That may make sense for routing restrictions, but it is going to really confuse a human map reader. Am I really asking something unreasonable of a router that when an xxxx_link way meets an xxxx way at a very low angle, the router should know to go forward and not almost reverse? - Alan _______________________________________________ Routing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/routing
