[OSM-talk] Separate lane tagging
flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com
Sat Mar 10 21:40:44 GMT 2012
I somehow forgot to react on this one.
2012/3/5 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> Am 5. März 2012 12:08 schrieb LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com>:
>> Currently the recommendation about separate mapping of directions
>> seems to be the existence of a physical divider (wall, grass...).
>> There is no problem if the divider is continuous and only has
>> 'holes' in it to allow turning or lane changing during construction
> when there are "holes" you will obviously have to split the divider
> and keep the holes free.
Sure, this question was not about dividers, but about the streets around.
>> If the divider is only a small object like tram platform, it does not
>> seem right to divide the way and connect it afterwards.
> why not? IMHO you should so exactly this. There are also similar
> situations like subway entrances and pedestrian crossing islands where
> the carriageway is split.
Not, because it seems like the road is curved, while it is not (or
>> If this is mapped according to the recommendation the street would
>> be between two rails (trams cannot change rails), which is not true.
>> If each of the one way general traffic roads is mapped separately,
>> it would seem that you cannot turn (you are not allowed to, but it is
>> physically possible).
> This whole "physically possible" field merits some further
> considerations and discussions IMHO. First of all: physically possible
> for whom? An old lady with a stick? A battle tank? A generic young
> male acting as pedestrian? Possible with a vehicle with 2 axes 4
> metres long and 1.8 wide or one 18 metres long and 2.3 metres wide?
> Would a cyclist dismantle and lift his bike over a small fence to
> avoid 3 km of detour? Would you risk damaging the tyres of your car
> (could still be "physically possible") or do you prefer not to? This
> all depends on a lot of different factors.
In this case physically possible for all the examples you mentioned.
The road has almost same surface quality across the whole width, the
only thing that is stopping you is a white line.
Adhering to the rules creates completely misleading results and
ignoring them by tagging the current legal situation makes physically
connected way look like a street with separated directions...
> For instance some time ago some mappers started to use
> highway=footway, footway=sidewalk to map sidewalks with dedicated
> osm-ways. This will in many cases actually lead to worse routing
> results, as a destination just on the other side of the road will make
> your router suggest to go via the next crossing (however far that
> might be), instead of telling you that you have already arrived.
More information about the talk