On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > Properly or perfectly? You can get a lot of information from just the > number of lanes and the turn restrictions on each. Enough for a > router to say "stay in one of the left two lanes". > > Yes, mapping every lane as a separate way would be even better, but > let's go one step at a time.
Actually, I take back that last sentence: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/reviews/tomtom-v8/v8_lane_assist_northwest2_speed_alert.jpg Do you think Garmin is mapping every lane as a separate way here? I don't think they are, or that they should. I think if I were going to do it, I'd map this as one way up to the theoretical gore point, and then as two ways after the theoretical gore point. I wouldn't use five ways. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
