[OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> >1, 2. Dual carriageway
>
>> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
>>
>
> Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and
> maintain pairs of roads (let's not call them "dual carriageways" - that's
> really a specific type of motorway). Let's imagine this tag is implemented
> and there is renderer support. What value do you see in mapping examples 2
> and 10 as pairs of roads rather than a single road with divided=median?
>
> Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping?
> Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, and
> the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not expected by
> end users. Why is a pair of roads better in 2 than a single, divided road?
>

If you don't see how it's more accurate, I can't help you.

Yes, in many of those cases you outline, it's overkill.  But in those same
cases, just leaving a single way and not worrying about the divider at all
is fine.  Only in a case where the divider provides routing information
(other than the ability to U-turn) would I say that it's important to use a
dual carriageway (seems to me to fit the dictionary definition).  The
"divided=median" tag is already micromapping.  All I'm saying is if you're
going to start micromapping, do it right.

OTOH, if you don't intend to use divided=* to represent routing information,
so routers and renderers can safely ignore the tag, then do whatever you
want with it.  Like I suggested, I'll just treat it as a type of todo tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091206/6d9f0734/attachment.html>