[OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On Aug 20, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2009/8/20 Peter Körner <osm-lists at mazdermind.de>:
>> Wmm why can't we say:
>>
>> 1L for the leftmost lane
>> 2L for the second lane from left
>> 1R for the rightmost lane
>>
>> where left and right is seen in driving-direction. So then the 2
>> rightmode lane seperates you can talk about 1R and 2R.
>>
>
> I'm opposing this approach of just tagging different lanes to one way
> as this gets too complicated in complex situations (I know situations
> with more than 18 "lanes"). I'd prefer to get to a
> map-all-lanes-and-dividers-as-separate-ways-approach and then
> recombine them with a relation, describing the possible changing from
> one lane to the other (possible-all-time, possible but legally
> prohibited, divider height=0.2m / 2m (Kerb/wall, whatever), green).
> This "spacial" representation would also allow to positionate
> additional objects at their actual spacial location (e.g.
> traffic-lights, bollards, speed-cams, guard-rails, lower kerbs,
> sculptures, trees, traffic-signs, benches, etc.)
>

how could you do this practically? aligning 18 lanes as individual  
ways is impossible in the current data model and editors.
agree that ways with dividers should be separate ways because routing  
must know crossing is not allowed. adding this info to any lane  
concept will make it too complicated
as soon as crossing is allowed all lanes can be modeled with any multi  
lane numbering scheme. having them as separate ways is wrong then  
because routing will not work for lane changes.


> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk