<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-05-07 17:57 GMT+02:00 Stefan Hahmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stefan.hahmann@geog.uni-heidelberg.de" target="_blank">stefan.hahmann@geog.uni-heidelberg.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div id=":40c" class="" style="overflow:hidden">My current favourite would be either solution 3 (which is easiest to implement in current routing engines) or solution 1 (for the sake of actual correct modeling). Maybe there are even more (better?) solutions?<br>
</div></blockquote></div><br><br>If you want to stay on this model with kerbs as a node, solution 1
seems the easiest. Alternatively I can imagine having the kerbs modeled
as ways as well, and model the true topology (i.e. the highway=footway
in the centre of the footway/sidewalk). This way you could use
area-relations (type=area) to make actual area:highways for the road
(from kerb to kerb) and the sidewalks (from kerb to the border), hereby
having an additional benefit.<br><br>The mapping as shown in the problem description is definitely
wrong, considering the conventions we use (highway-ways are in the
centre of the highway, hence their crossings cannot be the kerbs).<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Martin<br></div></div>