Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax >> for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway >> leading through the turnstile. > > does this imply to split the way on the stile? Do you split it on > either side?
This can be applied to any way as long as that way needs to be used when passing the stile. The stile should be a node on that way, but whether it is the first/last node or any node inbetween doesn't matter at all. > What about splitting it directly on the stile. By this > you could just tag one snip of the way towards the side you are > allowed to go as "stile_direction=yes" or something similar, without > being dependant on the direction of way. Similarly a relation could be > imagined (like turn_restriction). This is a special case useful *only* for this situation - which is an unnecessary burden for implementation of routing applications. It's preferable to use something that can be used to handle all sorts of different situations (and therefore needs to be implemented anyway). You can do something like stile_direction or a relation if you expect it to be used in rendering, but I'd definitely recommend to also use a tag like the one I suggested on the way to allow a more generic evaluation for routing/navigation. Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
