[OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Anthony]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/3 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>
>>
>> > Are there other downsides I'm missing?
>>
>> I think the biggest downside is that it creates two accepted ways to
>> map the same thing.  Even that, I suppose, is not a problem, if we
>> make it clear that the old way, which contains more information, is
>> preferable.
>
> no, I think this is a big con: there are (and will always be) people who
> change the map to different schemes, sometimes also loosing information
> (e.g. on talk-de it was recently reported that people delete separately
> mapped cycleways and attach cycleway=track to the road, what is loosing
> information (positional and inhebitance of tagging different maxspeeds,
> surfaces, widths, etc.). If the new way is containing less information,
> don't set it online.

That was my initial reaction.  But then I thought about all the other
situations where we have two accepted ways to map the same thing.  For
example, a building can be mapped as a point or an area.  One is more
detailed, but the other is acceptable if you don't have time for the
detail.

I don't know.  I read over the proposal again and I don't even get it,
actually.  Is the way supposed to be split before and after each
intersection?