On 9/18/2011 12:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dave F.<[email protected]> wrote:
On 18/09/2011 16:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg
I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways&
tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM& its tagging process.
I agree. This data would be quite useful to routing software,
especially when combined with information about which lanes have which
turn restrictions.
I think to do this properly you'd have to map every lane as a separate way.
Yes, it's a lot of work, and people routinely ignore it, but that
doesn't make it wrong. The way I see it, ignoring short lane number
changes is equivalent to ignoring short traffic dividers (e.g.
http://g.co/maps/cqdmf). I wouldn't blame someone for ignoring it,
but I wouldn't blame someone for including it either.
I see it as more like ignoring short breaks in traffic dividers (like
when crossing a divided highway).
Nathan, what is one supposed to do if *all* lanes are turning lanes
(e.g. http://g.co/maps/4j2uh)? Do we tag it lanes=0?
I would use lanes=2 there, since that's how many through lanes there are
before the turn lanes begin.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
