On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/8/31 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > No, it's a redesign of the whole system. A system which wasn't made for > > per-lane routing information. > > It wasn't designed with relations either, but they now exist too. > > In any case I've only suggested a minor change to add children to ways > and how this could be represented as one table for the DB and > additional tags for ways. Not exactly redoing things from scratch. > And that's part of what's wrong with it. You still haven't explained how to handle stop signs on bi-directional, one lane road. You haven't explained how to handle lane-changes. You require ways to be split every time the number of lanes changes (though I guess any system with "lanes=*" does that). You don't explain how to record where lanes can be changed and where they can't. You require adding children to every single bi-directional road in the world that merely has a stop sign. And you seem to be opposed to splitting ways in situations where there is a painted median. Yet you offer no explanation of how to handle the situation in the example I provided, where all the commercial solutions split the way. On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > As for per-lane routing, funnily enough people actually listed this as > a reason to do it, so you can have smarter routing. > It is a reason to do it. But it's a reason to do it right.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
