2009/9/20 Anthony <[email protected]>: > In most cases I don't think a relation is the only solution either. I don't > see it as an abuse, though. It is clearly being used to show a relation
Lanes aren't physically seperated so they shouldn't be split nor need a relation to show they are physically joined, I call that abusing relations. > As long as you only suggest tagging subsections of a way in those limited > cases where there is no routing information conveyed, I don't really care > how you implement it. > If there are 2 lanes going in the same direction, with maxspeeds 130 and > 110, the maxspeed in that direction is 130. The fact that you have to be in > a particular lane to travel at that speed is irrelevant to routing software > so long as you can change lanes freely. I disagree, you should be able to tag each lane with the right speed, otherwise you aren't accurately tagging things. > Per lane speeds, when you are free to change lanes, are fairly irrelevant. > I don't mind if you want to extend the system to handle them, but don't > suggest this extension has anything to do with other problems where we > already have multiple ways. Are they validly tagged ways or is it simply a way to tag things to deal with the DB as is? > To wit, this thread started with someone talking about "a cycle lane, dual > carriage way (with central reservtion) & footpath". Are you suggesting that > this should be represented as *a single way*? If so, I have to vehemently > disagree. If not, then tagging subsections of a single way has nothing to > do with the thread, and is off-topic. If it's a single physical section, ie a bridge with all the lanes physically connected then it should only be one way and we should be able to tag the individual lanes. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
