On 3 July 2012 16:47, Eckhart Wörner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Markus, > > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: >> Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to >> cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency >> vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. >> >> I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways >> than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to >> drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle >> drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. >> >> And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the >> street with foot=no. > > There is a reason why this is a bad idea: routing along linear features has > to work under the assumption that routes are just paths in the data. By > splitting ways, you're removing quite a lot of possible routes; e.g. try > pedestrian routing to the house opposite to yours.
Well, my house is by a residential street and there's no solid line in the middle :) Usually the solid line is there for an reason, like that there's lot of traffic. I wouldn't like it if a pedestrian routing engine asked me to cross a six lane heavily trafficked street just because there's no physical separation. /Markus _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
