Hi all, many thanks for all your feedback! It will take me a week to sort it all out! :)
In Milano we already have (nearly) all the tram traks drawn as distinct ways, so switching back to the "single way for highway and railway" model wouldn't be a good option - it would mean losing detail. I understand that drawing the road as a precise centerline and giving it correct width tags has a value of its own and would allow us to dynamically establish the relationship between roads and railway, not to mention a better rendering and modeling. But for the sake of "explicit is better than implicit" I still have the impression that we should also use a tag or two for saying that there is a tram track in a road. Sig 2015-02-08 23:18 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić <[email protected]>: > 2015-02-08 19:57 GMT+01:00 Jo <[email protected]>: > >> I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The >> shape of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas >> cars can make 90 degree turns. So I'll always keep using separate ways for >> the tram rails. One for each direction of travel. And a way in the middle >> (on the straight parts) for the highway. An exception to that are dual >> carriageways, with the rails embedded, but usually the rails are between >> the carriageways in that case. >> > > I agree, railway=tram should be separate. Tags on the highway only > describe lanes, they do not represent the railway. Tag > tram:lanes:forward=no|designated only says that the outer lane has a > railway track on it. > > Janko Mihelić > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
