[Tagging] lanes tag dispute
Nathan Edgars II
neroute2 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 18 17:59:55 BST 2011
On 9/18/2011 12:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dave F.<davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>> On 18/09/2011 16:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to:
>> I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways&
>> tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM& its tagging process.
> I agree. This data would be quite useful to routing software,
> especially when combined with information about which lanes have which
> turn restrictions.
I think to do this properly you'd have to map every lane as a separate way.
> Yes, it's a lot of work, and people routinely ignore it, but that
> doesn't make it wrong. The way I see it, ignoring short lane number
> changes is equivalent to ignoring short traffic dividers (e.g.
> http://g.co/maps/cqdmf). I wouldn't blame someone for ignoring it,
> but I wouldn't blame someone for including it either.
I see it as more like ignoring short breaks in traffic dividers (like
when crossing a divided highway).
> Nathan, what is one supposed to do if *all* lanes are turning lanes
> (e.g. http://g.co/maps/4j2uh)? Do we tag it lanes=0?
I would use lanes=2 there, since that's how many through lanes there are
before the turn lanes begin.
More information about the Tagging