[Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

Snusmumriken snusmumriken.mapper at runbox.com
Fri Oct 11 09:19:16 UTC 2019

On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 19:53 +0200, Markus wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:10, Snusmumriken
> <snusmumriken.mapper at runbox.com> wrote:
> > For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car
> > journey.
> > Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
> > Main street is a two way street where the two directions are
> > legally
> > separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of
> > the
> > road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's
> > further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to
> > cross
> > the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But
> > there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two
> > directions are separated.
> That's not true. There's another way to tell routers that it is
> illegal to change lanes: by adding that information to the highway=*
> way. There's already a tag for this: change:langes [1] (> 90 000
> uses).

That tag is about lane changing, I don't see how it could be applied to
my example

> While mapping separate ways where there is no physical barrier works
> for car routing, it breaks pedestrian routing and there's likely no
> way to fix this. Pedestrians usually are allowed to cross a painted
> line that cars aren't allowed to cross (at least in Europe).
> Therefore, if the road in your example is mapped with two separate
> ways, a routing engine would make pedestrians do a detour (possibly a
> long detour), even though they could just cross the street.

My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to
save a bit of time

More information about the Tagging mailing list