On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Mike N <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/18/2014 9:49 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > >> I thought I'd read up on all the stuff I needed to tag lanes=*, >> lanes:forward=*, lanes:backward=*, turn:lanes=*, >> turn:lanes:forward=*, turn:lanes:backward=*, etc. But I totally missed >> the existence of placement:*=* >> > > > I totally missed *placement: also - it's mentioned only in passing at > the bottom of one of the pages. Lane marking appears to be a complicated > system. I downloaded the JOSM turnlanes plugin, but it wants to tag via > relations. In my experience, the relation method is nearly impossible to > force onto the OSM topology for many intersections, so I gave up on that > early. >
Not to mention it's poorly visualized, and since they're kind of not really something many people actually do versus the more widely adopted turn:lanes way tagging, a royal pain in the ass to maintain. I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that the relation method is probably a cooked goose. Relations did bring a lot to the table, but it's just so freaking complicated for edge case benefit when a navigator with some common sense could find the ideal lane assuming the lanes were set right to start with. > I found the JOSM "Lane and road attributes", but noticed that it's > complaining about missing attributes on an intersection that I did but I > think the style is wrong. I'm going to dig into the code to see what it's > doing. > What's the node number at the intersection? > Needless to say, I don't expect newbies to easily pick up on lane > tagging. The good part about tagging lanes without relations is that > they won't be breaking turn lane relations by accident. At least for a while, until it becomes a bit more widespread and commonplace.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
