Le 21/08/2012 13:04, Colin Smale a écrit :
I live in hope that, one day, we might have documented defaults or
implied values per territory. Until that time, we may have to map both
the tangible artefact (solid line) and the implications for routing
(no u-turns etc.) separately. They are distinc
I live in hope that, one day, we might have documented defaults or
implied values per territory. Until that time, we may have to map both
the tangible artefact (solid line) and the implications for routing (no
u-turns etc.) separately. They are distinct concepts, related by the
rules of the ter
> You are allowed to cross a solid line, providing it is safe, to enter
> ajoining premises or a side road.
>
> In cases where this is prohibited there will be a sign and this should
> be tagged with a turn restrictions.
>
The rules are country-specific.
In the UK you are allowed to do this.
In Ge
> -Original Message-
> From: Gregory Williams [mailto:grego...@geode.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 21 August 2012 09:32
> To: 'winfi...@gmail.com'; 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
> Subject: RE: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
>
> From: Jo [mailto:winfi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 August 20
> -Original Message-
> From: Markus Lindholm [mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 August 2012 11:51
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
>
> On 20 August 2012 10:55, Gregory Williams
> wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> So I think that mapping divider based on pattern type is a better choice
> than mapping them based on their legal effects.
>
Until now in OSM tagging, all turning restrictions have been described
by the restriction, not by the traffic sign i
