[talk-au] Lanes [Was] Roundabouts and routing

[John Smith]

2009/12/19 Ross Scanlon <info at 4x4falcon.com>:
>> As I keep advocating, we should be able to map lanes, but it makes no
>> sense to try and use ways to do this because as Ross keeps pointing
>> out it just looks messy.
>
> And becomes unusable on small screens.

My advocacy is to treat ways like relations, you group the lanes into
a way and the tags from the way cascade to the lanes or can be
overriden, however for small screens you only use ways and ignore
lanes, although the lanes could be used for routing/turning even if
not displayed.

> They look like they will cover what we have been discussing.  We may need to get one of these pushed along, or offer assistance to do so.

No one in a position to do something about this seems to care, so it's
unlikely which is why people are using ways to represent lanes.

> 1. not mapping lanes as individual ways, as it will mean lots of work to modify them later on.

And because it's the wrong thing to do imho, since a way is a physical
thing, lanes aren't usually physically seperated from each other.

> 2. Tag sections of ways with lanes=* where there are junctions like this.  Other areas as you see fit.

Most ways can be assumed to be 2 lanes, so this is only needed if
there is more or less than 2 lanes, although tagging 2 lanes would at
least show it has been surveyed/mapped properly rather than not
knowing if the information is missing.

> 3. Make a decission on which of the above proposals for lanes we want to support and advocate it.

I'm not sure if either are the best way to do it, I'd love for proper
cascading of tags etc from ways -> lanes, and so on, but those
proposals suggest some weird tagging scheme (1) or using relations (2)
where I feel the way should be done is to assume a way is like a
relation that groups lanes together.