[OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
John Smith
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 20 14:10:15 BST 2009
2009/9/20 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> In most cases I don't think a relation is the only solution either. I don't
> see it as an abuse, though. It is clearly being used to show a relation
Lanes aren't physically seperated so they shouldn't be split nor need
a relation to show they are physically joined, I call that abusing
relations.
> As long as you only suggest tagging subsections of a way in those limited
> cases where there is no routing information conveyed, I don't really care
> how you implement it.
> If there are 2 lanes going in the same direction, with maxspeeds 130 and
> 110, the maxspeed in that direction is 130. The fact that you have to be in
> a particular lane to travel at that speed is irrelevant to routing software
> so long as you can change lanes freely.
I disagree, you should be able to tag each lane with the right speed,
otherwise you aren't accurately tagging things.
> Per lane speeds, when you are free to change lanes, are fairly irrelevant.
> I don't mind if you want to extend the system to handle them, but don't
> suggest this extension has anything to do with other problems where we
> already have multiple ways.
Are they validly tagged ways or is it simply a way to tag things to
deal with the DB as is?
> To wit, this thread started with someone talking about "a cycle lane, dual
> carriage way (with central reservtion) & footpath". Are you suggesting that
> this should be represented as *a single way*? If so, I have to vehemently
> disagree. If not, then tagging subsections of a single way has nothing to
> do with the thread, and is off-topic.
If it's a single physical section, ie a bridge with all the lanes
physically connected then it should only be one way and we should be
able to tag the individual lanes.
More information about the talk
mailing list