2011/8/25 Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]> > On 8/24/2011 8:59 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 8/24/2011 8:07 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/24/2011 3:44 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Secondly, I'm not sure that the >>>>>> way of the crossing would be a highway=footway. Isn't that supposed to >>>>>> be a separate "carriageway"? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How is this not a separate linear object? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.535671,-81.374757&spn=0.001046,0.002575&gl=us&t=k&z=20&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.535671,-81.374757&panoid=DE6JLCTtWf6zny20lLARPw&cbp=12,188.61,,0,8.06 >>>>> >>>> >>>> A vehicle could travel between the two. >>>> >>>> The two what? I'm talking about the object represented by >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/67386026 . >>> >> >> And you're asking how it is not separate from what? >> >> I'm confused by this whole thread, not least by your apparent answering > of your own question with two more. If you want to know exactly what Simone > Saviolo meant, don't ask me.
Woah, stop :-) What I meant is: - we've always said that each way should represent a linear feature; - for highways, this means a carriageway. If a road has a single two-way carriageway, i.e., if a car going from A to B can go on the opposite lane (the one used by those who go from B to A), then it should be drawn as a single way. If there is an actual physical separation such as a barrier (for example on motorways) then there are two carriageways and two ways should be drawn (*usually* each one would be one-way). - it is disputed whether to draw two ways where two lanes are divided by a traffic island (which is a legal strict separation, even stricter than the continuous line, but not a physical separation) - it is even disputed whether to draw a different way for PSV-reserved lanes, which are usually delimited by some kind of kerbs (albeit usually low) and occasionally allow PSVs to ignore a one-way restriction Considering the above, I can hardly see how a crossing (either for pedestrians or cyclists or horsemen) would deserve its own way (especially a highway=*). The only "need" for it - and mind it, it seems quite a good point to have it IMHO - would be routing. For sure, if it seems fit to draw the way, it should not be a highway=footway (using pedestrians as an example). I suggest using highway=crossing for that. Using it on nodes is only appropriate to mark at what point of the road vehicles may encounter pedestrians trying to cross. Secondly, highway=crossing ways would be clearly indicated as routable segments that are not actually part of, for example, a cycleway network. Regards, Simone
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
