[Talk-us] (Was) How is Scout?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Mike N <niceman at att.net> wrote:

> On 7/18/2014 9:49 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
>> I thought I'd read up on all the stuff I needed to tag lanes=*,
>> lanes:forward=*, lanes:backward=*,  turn:lanes=*,
>> turn:lanes:forward=*, turn:lanes:backward=*, etc. But I totally missed
>> the existence of placement:*=*
>>
>
>
>   I totally missed *placement: also - it's mentioned only in passing at
> the bottom of one of the pages.    Lane marking appears to be a complicated
> system.   I downloaded the JOSM turnlanes plugin, but it wants to tag via
> relations.   In my experience, the relation method is nearly impossible to
> force onto the OSM topology for many intersections, so I gave up on that
> early.
>

Not to mention it's poorly visualized, and since they're kind of not really
something many people actually do versus the more widely adopted turn:lanes
way tagging, a royal pain in the ass to maintain.  I think it's pretty safe
to say at this point that the relation method is probably a cooked goose.
 Relations did bring a lot to the table, but it's just so freaking
complicated for edge case benefit when a navigator with some common sense
could find the ideal lane assuming the lanes were set right to start with.


>    I found the JOSM "Lane and road attributes", but noticed that it's
> complaining about missing attributes on an intersection that I did but I
> think the style is wrong.   I'm going to dig into the code to see what it's
> doing.
>

What's the node number at the intersection?


>    Needless to say, I don't expect newbies to easily pick up on lane
> tagging.    The good part about tagging lanes without relations is that
> they won't be breaking turn lane relations by accident.


At least for a while, until it becomes a bit more widespread and
commonplace.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140719/5066b32d/attachment.html>