[Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 10:22:10 UTC 2019
On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm
> <frederik at remote.org <mailto:frederik at remote.org>>:
> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn
> at junctions.
> this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions,
> wouldn't it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a
> line that cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this
> on the junction nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of
> turn restriction relations which would be already implied?
> I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did
> not fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under
> which circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which
> meaning? Maybe we should not map the lines physically, but according
> to their legal meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen):
> divider that cannot be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed
> legally, divider that can be crossed but only for turning left not for
> u-turns, etc.
Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road?
Centre cannot be crossed (all)
Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed)
Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed)
Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed)
Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed)
Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging