On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>: > > don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I > > suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but > > you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of > > separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case > > just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same > > procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well) > > Why do we need relations to combine "lanes" into "ways". > The suggestion was to use relations to combine "ways" into "streets". > Wouldn't it make more sense to tag lanes of ways? > Only if those lanes have identical geometries and traffic is free to change lanes. The use of a single way implies that traffic is free to travel between any parts of a way. What if you have a single bridge with two lanes traveling in the same direction which are separated by a Jersey barrier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier)? It would be incorrect to use a single way to represent that bridge. There are two ways and one bridge. A relation seems like the only appropriate way to represent this, and I don't see how it's a hack.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
