We have more recent AGIV imagery now. All I see wrong is that the cycleway is connected to the underground waterway. But the main road is too. Probably to silence validator warnings in a totally inappropriate way...
I still think it's correct to draw the cycleways separate cases like this. Marc, you opened a can of worms there :-) But it's good that the subject of using separate ways to represent lanes is brought up on the list. Jo 2014-05-13 8:15 GMT+02:00 Wouter Hamelinck <[email protected]>: > Wow, based on the Bing images a simple T-crossing and a bypass is all > there is in reality. > Also, note the nice examples of about everything that can go wrong > when drawing parallel cycleways along the N47. > > wouter > > 2014-05-13 6:35 GMT+02:00 Jo <[email protected]>: > > Zeker wel, het klopt niet om een aparte weg te tekenen voor elk rijvak. > > > > Absolutely, using a separate way to represent traffic lanes is not how > it's > > supposed to be done. > > > > Jo > > > > > > 2014-05-13 5:48 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <[email protected]>: > >> > >> Hallo, > >> > >> Ik vraag me af of het OK is het volgende kruispunt te vereenvoudigen via > >> turn:lanes : http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440 > >> > >> I wonder whether it's ok to simplify the following crossing with > >> turn:lanes tagging: http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440 > >> > >> met vriendelijke groeten > >> regards > >> > >> m > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk-be mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-be mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > > > -- > "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei." > - Thor Heyerdahl >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
