On Sunday, August 30, 2009, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Anthony<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You want to have two completely different ways to tag stop >> signs? What's your solution? Stop signs are directional, whether they are >> lane based or not. > > +1 - I agree with Tobias and Anthony. John, I know you feel that > solving the "lane" problem will solve the "stop sign" problem (indeed > it might), but the stop sign problem *can be solved independently* (by > indicating the direction or the junction to which it applies), and is > a simpler problem to solve - so I think we should go ahead with this > and vote for either the use of a way+node relation or a node+direction > tag to denote a stop sign (I vote for relation for several reasons). > >> That makes no sense. You want to have lanes instead of ways? >> >> Lanes are ways. > > +1 > > John, perhaps we're missing something. Why do you want to add more > tables to the DB? I don't see why you think using a relation is a > "hack". You said, "just like a relation joins multiple ways, a way > [should join] multiple lanes." From the wiki: "relations are basically > groups of objects in which each object may take on a specific role." > This sounds suitable for what you're suggesting. Have you seen > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lane_and_lane_group, > for example? > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > Couldn't have said it better myself.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
