[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Sent: 18 March 2008 5:03 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [OSM-talk] 2 divided carriage-ways meeting at traffic lights. > >Hi, >This type of junction is very common here in Calgary, I just wanted to >confirm that I'm constructed it correctly. > >It's basically two divided carriage ways (parallel, opposite one way >streets with curb or larger seperator) crossing at a set of traffic >lights. In addition there are normally turn right lanes which are not >controlled by the lights. > >An example (of I what I have been doing) is here: >http://www.openstreetmap.com/?lat=51.11809&lon=- >114.07036&zoom=17&layers=0BFT > >Since the box/area confined by the lights in not divided (it is open >tarmac), is there something special I should do here. I am worried that >future routing software will say 'take the second left' rather than 'take >the next left'.
Looks good to me. The routing will take into account that you can't travel the wrong way down a one way street. Cheers Andy > >Why are there not 'primary_links' and 'secondary_links'? I have been using >unamed roads for the uncontrolled right turns.... > >Cheers, >Mungewell. > >PS. Why are trunk_links rendered above primary/secondary streets. It make >ugly junctions. > >PPS. What's the best way to mark pedestrian overpasses/foot bridges? Can >you specify the height restriction for road underneath? > > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
