Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-16 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Mark Wagner > wrote: > > I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway. I don't know what the > > law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-14 Thread Rory McCann
On 12/02/17 21:56, Mark Wagner wrote: > I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway. I don't know what the > law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow > line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed > to drive across it for any reason. Umm...

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-13 Thread Topographe Fou
graphe...@gmail.com Envoyé: 12 février 2017 12:47 PM À: tagging@openstreetmap.org Objet: Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads? Marc, it looks like you propose to tag it as a lane which can be used to turn which is not what Roadsguy w

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2017-02-12 21:56 GMT+01:00 Mark Wagner : > I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway. I don't know what the > law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow > line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed > to drive across

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-12 Thread Marc Gemis
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: > I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway. I don't know what the > law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow > line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed > to

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-12 Thread Mark Wagner
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:39:00 -0500 Albert Pundt wrote: > Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each > way, with a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but > not used for anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this > with just

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-12 Thread Topographe Fou
...@gmail.com Envoyé: 12 février 2017 7:40 AM À: tagging@openstreetmap.org Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org Objet: Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads? You could add lanes:both_ways=1 turn:lanes:both_ways=left regards m On Sun, Feb 12, 2017

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-11 Thread Marc Gemis
You could add lanes:both_ways=1 turn:lanes:both_ways=left regards m On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Albert Pundt wrote: > Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each way, with > a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but not used for

[Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

2017-02-11 Thread Albert Pundt
Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each way, with a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but not used for anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this with just lanes=2 seems wrong since it fails to take into account the lane width separating the