[Tagging] Carriageway divider

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Tue Aug 21 12:04:59 BST 2012

I live in hope that, one day, we might have documented defaults or 
implied values per territory. Until that time, we may have to map both 
the tangible artefact (solid line) and the implications for routing (no 
u-turns etc.) separately. They are distinct concepts, related by the 
rules of the territory.


On 21/08/2012 09:47, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
>> So I think that mapping divider based on pattern type is a better choice
>> than mapping them based on their legal effects.
> Until now in OSM tagging, all turning restrictions have been described
> by the restriction, not by the traffic sign  itself like "arrow_up" or
> "arrow_left_crossed-out". Your argument about "unambiguous if you know
> the law locally" is true in both translations. Excepted that with
> "solid_line", you ask the applications to know all local laws arround
> the world. With the value "no_u_turn", applications or other
> contributors around the world understand immediately what it means.
> Your second argument about multiple tags is correct but the list of
> line patterns on the ground can be very long as well (double solid
> line, dotted lines on one side, colours, etc).
> Pieren
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list