[Tagging] Carriageway divider
markus.lindholm at gmail.com
Sun Aug 19 19:35:16 BST 2012
On 19 August 2012 15:26, Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
>> > On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai <fabrizio.carrai at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Indeed a "Divider=solid_line" proposal  was already presented . I'm would
>> >> revamp such proposal.
>> >> What is your opinion ? Is there any router developer here ?
>> > In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line)
>> > the same way as physical separation, i.e. create two separate
>> > highways, one in each direction.
>> This would make it impossible to treat solid lines and physical
>> separation differently in rendering, so imo it is not an acceptable
> It would also not allow for conditions where the solid line only affects
> traffic in one direction.
Of course if the two opposing lanes aren't mutually legally separated
then they shouldn't be created as two highways.
> Also would imply a dual carriageway and therefore imply a higher speed
> limit where the National Speed Limit tag has been used.
That I don't understand at all. You're not proposing a heuristic
algorithm that tries to spot dual carriageways and then impose implied
> Routers would still have the ascendancy to route U-turns around the end
> of the division.
At the next crossing U-turns might be allowed or not and a turn
restriction relation should be added if not.
More information about the Tagging