On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/9/21 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > If you're allowed to cross it, for instance to make a turn, it should be > > represented as one way. If you aren't, it shouldn't. In Florida and I > > As I point out below, you can't turn depending on the centre line not > being solid. Should we create multiple ways for intermittent areas > where you can't cross or not? > If it doesn't affect any routing information, then we shouldn't, because it's a waste of time, but I don't mind if you do. >> > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-26.134596,152.582068&spn=0,359.990988&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-26.134719,152.583365&panoid=Zqx7qYT6v-zeBfuZnmywdA&cbp=12,270.23,,0,5.75 > > > > In this case there appear to be no intersections or places to turn, in > which > > case it doesn't really matter. > > Irrelevent since you keep bringing up u-turns you can't do that either. > That could be more easily represented by some sort of "uturn=no" though. > I'm not talking about where passing is allowed, I'm talking about where > > turning is allowed. In any case, once again there appear to be no > > intersections or places to turn, in which case it doesn't really matter. > > the link above you can only cross the road depending on the lane you are > in. > You'll have to show me an intersection with such lines, or the law. This looks to me like a passing restriction. > If you can direct me to a site which explains these lines and what they > > mean, I can give you a further response. > > It's really simple, solid line = you can't cross to turn in any > respect, colour of the paint is irrelevent they used to use yellow > they switched to white the law is still the same. > Well, let's take this intersection: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=-26.124795,152.574151&panoid=H08s6qv1gLXcd8hGtNhvwg&cbp=12,333.55,,0,2.6&ll=-26.124704,152.574123&spn=0,359.996175&z=18 If you want to micromap that, I'd go with dual carriageways. >> You didn't express this opinion earlier, you were trying to show > >> multiple ways where there is no physical barrier. > > > > Okay, fine, so we are in agreement? All this stuff about mapping > individual > > lanes is off-topic? We need a method to represent a single bridge with > > multiple ways? Any suggestions? > > How could we be in agreement you've completely ignored my last point. > Do we need a method to represent a single bridge with multiple ways? Any suggestions?
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
