[OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Fri Dec 4 17:18:35 GMT 2009


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> 3 as actually just a wide road marking. Such cross hatch areas do need to
> be
> covered but this a single road with 'advisory' road marking rather than a
> divider?
>

I don't know.  I actually got a traffic ticket once for going through a
cross hatch area, and I researched it in depth to try to see whether or not
it was legit.  In the end, I couldn't find any definitive statement one way
or the other, and I wound up paying the ticket rather than taking a day off
work to try to fight it.  I think I was right, that it basically means "use
lots and lots of extra caution when changing lanes" (*), but I wasn't 100%
sure (plus I figured there would then be a dispute as to whether or not I
used lots and lots of extra caution).

(*) A solid white line means lane change is "discouraged", wide lines are
used for "extra emphasis", and chevrons are used for "special emphasis".
But the lines are referred to as "channelizing lines", and the area is
referred to as a "gore area", which suggests to me that it might be
considered legally equivalent to non-roadway.

----

In any case, I think it would be useful to map these painted areas as areas,
regardless of whether or not it is technically legal to drive over them
(which probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction anyway).  If
they're illegal to drive over, we can then add access=no, which satisfies
people who want routing information for emergency vehicles or for people who
just don't care about breaking the law.  Unfortunately, connecting an area,
to a way which is adjacent to it, doesn't work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091204/d1840ee6/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list