[Tagging] Self explanatory?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat Dec 8 19:48:44 GMT 2012

2012/12/8 Martin Vonwald <imagic.osm at gmail.com>:
> currently used tagging styles and added my solution. I would like to
> ask you to have a look at the following images and tell me if you
> understand what's going on. Please don't comment on the underlying
> tagging styles - I randomly selected some I know (and may or may not
> support them).
> http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_1.jpeg
> http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_2.jpeg
> http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_3.jpeg
> http://www.vonwald.info/osm/images/Self_explanatory_4.jpeg

I think this is confusing, but this is just because this mapping style
is not introduced and if there were good arguments I think we could
get used to it.
I also think that some are not very good examples because they could
be better in the geometric detail, for instance this one:


I'd expect to see this represented by a way that goes straight and has
a crossing (or exit link) turning slightly to the right, instead in
the example it seems as if there is a "V"-crossing with the leftern
(straight) part more inclined than the actually turning one (link).

As for your triangles: if we should choose to represent these
situations (bifurcations of carriageways) in a way similar to these
examples they should still not be areas (or closed ways).


More information about the Tagging mailing list