11 Oct 2019, 12:38 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:21 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
>> > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic
>> > laws
>> > in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to
>> > go. So
>> > he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
>> > tells him what he can do.
>> you are missing the point: when the emergency vehicle gets the call,
>> the routing engine will suggest a route to approach the place of
>> action from where it is now, and depending on the osm data (and other
>> data like traffic congestion, unaccessible roads, etc.) it may
>> suggest different routes. Of course you can dismiss this in general
>> and say: "the driver will know where to go" or "will use his own
>> judgement", i.e. would not use OSM data at all, but this is not the
>> reality, in reality, OSM is used more and more in emergency
>> scenarios. There are companies dedicated to provide OSM-data-based
>> infrastructure for use by emergency services. I have seen it.
> Thanks for clearing that out. I still think it is better to map for the
> 99.99% of drivers who need to follow the law strictly. Special tagging
> for different emergency vehicles could be applied.
> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST lead to
> way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a very
> bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should be
And we are doing this.
Maybe there is better choice than
"One highway line = carriageway",
but in my opinion healthy conservatives is a good idea.
Redefining stuff without very, very good
reason seems to be a bad idea.
Tagging mailing list