On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:27 -0500, David Lynch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:10, Russ Nelson<[email protected]> wrote: > > An even more aggressive fix would be to > > disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link. That's probably > > correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement. > > Not a good idea at all, IMO. I can think of numerous places within 50 > miles of my home where, due to existing highways being upgraded to > motorway or towns being bypassed by freeway/motorway-grade highway, > there are nodes which have both motorway and non-motorway ways > connected, because the motorway lanes empty directly onto the old > highway
Yeah, you definitely have to be careful. It's OK for a motorway to touch: 1. another motorway 2. a motorway_link 3. a non-mototorway, but only at its *END* node. Not at its beginning node 4. "service" roads. Our friendly police officers love to use these little spurs to hide for speed traps in Oregon. :) Here's where I-72 ends, for instance. This really is a full motorway and I wouldn't call it a motorway_link even up until the point where it runs into a stoplight: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.12193&lon=-88.28141&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF -- Dave _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
