Steve Hill wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: > >> * If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically >> apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that >> access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse. > > Ok, sounds like we would need a relation for this so you can specify > which way it applies to.
Sometimes you won't have a crossing Way at all. I should probably have been clearer about that. For example the case where the crossing merely goes from one sidewalk of a busy road to the opposite sidewalk. Sidewalks are considered part of the Way in OSM, yet you still might want to declare non-default crossing types. cycleway=track -> toucan-style crossing -> cycleway=opposite_track is probably the corner case here. A Relation between a) a single crossing and b) the Way(s) it crosses might make more sense. But it might also be too fiddly to apply, and relying on it would not be backwards-compatible. >> * The access tag is not documented as being applicable to Nodes. Most >> crossings will be Nodes. > > It probably should be applicable to nodes so that you can apply it to > things like gates I believe it's being talked abut in the Barrier proposal. Barriers/gates don't have the complication of being more applicable to one highway which joins another at them than the other, typically. I think that sentence will parse. -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
