[Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
markus.lindholm at gmail.com
Tue Jul 3 14:15:22 BST 2012
On 3 July 2012 15:03, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/7/3 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić <janjko at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make
>>> you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will.
>> I discover the overtake tag:
>> but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that "overtaking=no" means "no
>> u-turn" as well. Could we write this assertion ?
> overtaking isn't used very much either (less than 2000 times), and as
> written above: a solid line is not only about overtaking and u-turns:
> you are never allowed to cross it in any case (besides you are an
> emergency vehicle in case of an emergency or similar, e.g. you are
> also not allowed to turn left).
> I think that the divider-proposal has a much better semantics compared
> to overtaking. Lets tag directly what we mean, not "overtaking=no" if
> we want to say "no u-turn".
In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation
(i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have
two ways, one in each direction.
More information about the Tagging