[Tagging] lanes tag dispute

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sun Sep 18 18:18:56 BST 2011


On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Properly or perfectly?  You can get a lot of information from just the
> number of lanes and the turn restrictions on each.  Enough for a
> router to say "stay in one of the left two lanes".
>
> Yes, mapping every lane as a separate way would be even better, but
> let's go one step at a time.

Actually, I take back that last sentence:
http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/reviews/tomtom-v8/v8_lane_assist_northwest2_speed_alert.jpg

Do you think Garmin is mapping every lane as a separate way here?  I
don't think they are, or that they should.  I think if I were going to
do it, I'd map this as one way up to the theoretical gore point, and
then as two ways after the theoretical gore point.  I wouldn't use
five ways.



More information about the Tagging mailing list