On 19 August 2012 15:26, Philip Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote: >> > On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Indeed a "Divider=solid_line" proposal [3] was already presented . I'm >> >> would >> >> revamp such proposal. >> >> What is your opinion ? Is there any router developer here ? >> >> >> > In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line) >> > the same way as physical separation, i.e. create two separate >> > highways, one in each direction. >> >> This would make it impossible to treat solid lines and physical >> separation differently in rendering, so imo it is not an acceptable >> solution. >> > +1 > > It would also not allow for conditions where the solid line only affects > traffic in one direction.
Of course if the two opposing lanes aren't mutually legally separated then they shouldn't be created as two highways. > Also would imply a dual carriageway and therefore imply a higher speed > limit where the National Speed Limit tag has been used. That I don't understand at all. You're not proposing a heuristic algorithm that tries to spot dual carriageways and then impose implied speed limits? > > Routers would still have the ascendancy to route U-turns around the end > of the division. At the next crossing U-turns might be allowed or not and a turn restriction relation should be added if not. /Markus _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
