<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Lester Caine <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk">lester@lsces.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
grow from nothing to several meters. At what point do you change from 'divided'<br>
to separate ways, which then begs the question </blockquote><div><br>This is the same kind of question as when a road switches from tertiary to secondary etc. Does it need a firm answer? It would only be problematic, IMHO, if a road was frequently switching from one form to the other.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">- why have divided if it's just a<br>
shorthand for two ways with opposite directions.<br></blockquote><div><br>I don't think it is "just a shorthand". In many cases I would put it the other way: "two ways with opposite directions" is "just a kludge" for a single divided road. Up until now, we haven't had a way to properly tag a single divided road, so we do it with two ways. We can fix that.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
</div>You need to justify the real need for it. I'll continue to map the actual<br>
structure, and add the additional ways for the related footpaths. I don't see<br>
the need for this shorthand for many of the cases you are trying to make?<br></blockquote><div><br>If you're mapping every footpath, you are clearly working at a different level of detail. It's great that your area apparently has every road already covered already. Mine doesn't.<br>
<br>To put it differently, the "real need" is to be able to efficiciently map areas which have divided roads, without resorting to micromapping them as two ways. I understand that you wouldn't use this tag. But would you object to others using it?<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
</div>I think what YOU are missing is that in most cases where there are traffic<br>
islands which add one way sections of way, they ARE mapped. Around here there<br></blockquote><div><br>Yes. And does mapping a traffic island as a splitting of a road into two ways not scream "wrong!" at you?<br>
<br>Example:<br><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.820693&lon=144.919989&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.820693&lon=144.919989&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF</a><br>
<br>This looks right to you?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
was an attempted to remove some of them, but that has been rolled back, so where<br>
a road splits, the correct direction ways are added. Routing does not then need<br>
to run through lots of additional tags to find if it can then do a maneuver ...<br></blockquote><div><br>One key for ways, one key for junctions. Trivial stuff.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
</div>I think it is essential that slipways are mapped. ESPECIALLY when one is trying<br>
to add the right routing instructions. TomTom has started showing motorway and<br>
major road slipway details properly. You need to know when to get to an inside<br>
lane and take a slip road PRIOR to the actual junction. </blockquote><div><br>Maybe we should be mapping slipways, hopefully there's a better approach than marking them all as fully fledged roads though.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
These are no different<br>
to the island details approaching a roundabout, so trying to 'save time' by not<br>
actually adding quite important detail does seem wrong? </blockquote><div><br>Even if it were the case that this was "important detail" which I was proposing not adding, it wouldn't be "wrong", because surely a slipway here is not as important as a whole road not mapped somewhere else. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
</div>Example 3 is no more than a wide 'double line' road marking. SO is it a<br>
'divided' or is it simply a road marking? </blockquote><div><br>Either way, we currently have no way of marking it.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The problem with the proposal is that<br>
it does not have any indication on when it should be used ... </blockquote><div><br>Other than, say, <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road#Scope">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road#Scope</a><br>
<br>Steve<br></div></div><br>