[OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

[Anthony]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> > don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I
> > suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but
> > you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of
> > separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case
> > just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same
> > procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well)
>
> Why do we need relations to combine "lanes" into "ways".
>

The suggestion was to use relations to combine "ways" into "streets".


> Wouldn't it make more sense to tag lanes of ways?
>

Only if those lanes have identical geometries and traffic is free to change
lanes.  The use of a single way implies that traffic is free to travel
between any parts of a way.

What if you have a single bridge with two lanes traveling in the same
direction which are separated by a Jersey barrier (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier)?  It would be incorrect to use
a single way to represent that bridge.  There are two ways and one bridge.

A relation seems like the only appropriate way to represent this, and I
don't see how it's a hack.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090919/b76e6733/attachment.html>