On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> That isn't tagging reality, the bridge doesn't have multiple ways > You clearly define "way" differently than I do, and differently than the current definition. The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM today. > there isn't even physical seperation on the bridge itself between most > of the lanes when the lanes shift, it's simply lights above the lanes > indicating direction. > At least you admit there *is* physical separation between *some* lanes. If you propose treating the 8 lanes as two ways, one six lane way (with a one-way restriction during some part of the day) and one two lane way (which is always one way), I can accept that. But I don't accept treating the two roads that are clearly separated as the same way as the other roads which are clearly not. > Be specific about your proposed solution, though, and maybe I'll find that > > I'm wrong. > > 1 bridge, multiple lanes. How much simplier do you want it? > That answers nothing. Of course we have bridge and multiple lanes. > There isn't 2 bridges please show me the second bridge because I'm > sure it will be news to at least the 4.5million people in Sydney at > the very least. > I never claimed there are 2 bridges. There is one bridge, with multiple ways. "bridge" does not equal "way". http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&ll=40.727889,-74.100804&spn=0.002041,0.003825&t=h&z=18is one bridge, with more than one way. You seem to be the only one claiming this isn't true.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
