On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/8/31 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > > Right, and at an intersection which has a turning lane, there is a > > restriction on a per-lane basis. You can only turn left from the turning > > lane - you can only go straight (or possibly right) from the other lanes. > > So do you propose splitting the way at every turning lane? > > How would using relations solve this either? I never suggested using relations to "solve" it. I don't think it needs solving. You cross the roads at a 90 degree angle and ignore the turning lane. People know you have to get into the left hand turning lane to make a left hand turn (a jughandle would look altogether different as the jughandle itself would constitute a new way). Right now turning restrictions already require a relation, though this relation could actually be avoided if you allowed "lane" to be a "way" (you'd simply have nodes for the lanes that connect and no nodes for the lanes that don't connect). Each lane would already be one-way unless you're talking about a road where both directions share the same lane. > I guess for the most part we don't. We could just split the way up into > > multiple lanes as necessary and then merge them back together. Still no > > need for an extra table or children, though. > > I guess we have to agree to disagree then, you seem to be trying to > fit things into the existing frame work for the sake of it and it's an > ugly hack. > I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but it'd be nice if you'd answer my questions about how to do all those things I asked about.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
