2012/5/22 Martin Vonwald <imagic....@gmail.com>: > 2012/5/22 Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com>: >> 2012/5/22 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> >>> -1, this has been discussed ad infinitum on the German list. >> I'm sure this was already suggested, but I would like to know: what if the >> sidewalk had the same name as the street, would that be enough? If the >> router saw two highways with the same name, it would choose footway or path >> instead of highway, if possible. > > You still wouldn't know if you could change from the footway/path to > the street or not. Maybe there's some kind of barrier in between them. > If you map them separately you simply lose the information what > (cycleway, sidewalk, whatever) belongs together. > > And before some suggests it: no, I don't think a relation is a > manageable solution in this case ;-)
Well, the relation offers greater benefit than simply associating parts of the road: you can also add more parts (dividers/barriers) which can be mapped explicitly or also only described implicity with tags (e.g. you can have a dual carriageway and state that between the two is a 1 metre high concrete wall, without drawing the wall, or you could draw the wall and put them together with the road into the relation, or you could have the wall implicitly (tags) in the data but put the one point where it is interrupted as explicit geometry into the relation, ...). This allows for mapping of raised and lowered kerbs, walls, and other barriers between two (or more?) more or less parallel ways which belong to the same road. You can map these elements then without having to create "artificially" non-existing (e.g.) footways to connect a pavement with the road via a lowered kerb or similar. See the area-relation-proposal if you are interested. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
