On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 07:59:41PM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> lanes=* should be the total number of lanes... if it's a one-lane road with
> two way traffic, I'd go with...
things change somewhat when using lanes:forward:conditional and
lanes:backward:conditional - these are not likely to sum up
lanes=* should be the total number of lanes... if it's a one-lane road with
two way traffic, I'd go with...
lanes=1
lanes:both_ways=1
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 4:01 PM Richard wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:27:57AM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Are we talking a 1 lane or a 3 lane road? Bec
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:27:57AM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Are we talking a 1 lane or a 3 lane road? Because that looks like it's
> describing a 3 lane road.
looks like 1 lane to me but the example would not work for other reasons.
We could do
lanes=0
# this is "default" for routers/app
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:59:22PM +0100, yo paseopor wrote:
> > One little point
> >
> > Untill now GPS navigation is orientative, not compulsory, obligatory or
> > have-to-do. So instead your Osmand says you go in opposite direction, you
> > drive
Are we talking a 1 lane or a 3 lane road? Because that looks like it's
describing a 3 lane road.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 1:00 PM yo paseopor wrote:
> One little point
>
> Untill now GPS navigation is orientative, not compulsory, obligatory or
> have-to-do. So instead your Osmand says you go in o
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:59:22PM +0100, yo paseopor wrote:
> One little point
>
> Untill now GPS navigation is orientative, not compulsory, obligatory or
> have-to-do. So instead your Osmand says you go in opposite direction, you
> drive, you decide. No kamikaze please.
correct, but it is not o
One little point
Untill now GPS navigation is orientative, not compulsory, obligatory or
have-to-do. So instead your Osmand says you go in opposite direction, you
drive, you decide. No kamikaze please.
yopaseopor
PD: conditional lanes tagging situation would be interesting with a new tag
(forward
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:05:49PM -0500, Jack Burke wrote:
> Following the KISS principle, barrier node tagging might be the way to go,
> at least initially.
>
> Barrier tagging Pros:
> * Easy to implement in routing (e.g., OsmAnd's routing.xml can process a
> node as barrier=1 or barrier=-1 bas
With the advent of new reversible freeways north and south of Atlanta, I
think it's time we try to come up with a way to model the reversal schedule
so that routers can begin to utilize them properly. Note that I am
referring to roads where the entire roadway reverses, not a reversible
*lane* scen
