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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> > Fine.  You can add "maximum height" along with "maximum speed" to your
> list
> > of lane-specific data.
> >
> > I don't find it very important, but if you want to allow for this,
> without
> > messing up anyone else, feel free.
>
> I don't find people tagging botanical names on plants useful either,
> but they're doing it because they feel it is important.
>
> At present I am not easily able to tag individual lanes, but would
> love to be able to do it.
>

I'd love for you to be able to do it.  Come up with a way to do it that
doesn't require rewriting all the editors, all the routing software, and
combining multiple ways into single ways, and we can both be happy.

>> Ever been on a bridge with dynamic lane changes depending on time of day?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> At present how exactly would you tag it?
>

Give me an exact situation, and give me your exact proposed solution.

If we're talking about the Walt Whitman Bridge, with its "zipper barrier" (
http://www.phillyroads.com/crossings/walt-whitman/img12.gif), it could be
represented presently as four ways, two in each direction, with time
restrictions so that at any time only two ways are open.

That's not how I'd tag it, though.  I'd probably tag it as two ways with 3.5
lanes each.  Because I don't think the current mapping software would like
the four way solution, and I don't want to break anything.  Ultimately, if
we can get the mapping software to support it, I'd prefer the four way
solution, though.

That's an interesting scenario, though.  I'm interested in hearing your
solution.  You might even be able to convince me that you're right, if
you're specific enough.

> So you think those examples should all be represented as a single way?
> >
> > That's horrible.
>
> What exactly is so horrible about it exactly, they are all part of the
> same physical way, but there is various lanes and being able to tag
> them individually would make a lot more sense than trying to plot
> multiple parallel ways.
>

They're not part of the same physical way.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&ll=40.727889,-74.100804&spn=0.002041,0.003825&t=h&z=18

Two ways.  One bridge.

>
> http://bikelaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pulaski-bridge-walkway.jpg?w=324&h=241
> >
> > One bridge or two?
> >
> > If it's one, then you are off-topic.
>
> Please explain exactly how that is two bridges, it's physically one
> bridge with multiple lanes even if one of those lanes isn't for cars.
>

It's two ways and one bridge.

http://www.treehugger.com/bike-commuters-on-bridge-with-heavy-traffic.jpg

Two ways, one bridge.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&ll=40.727889,-74.100804&spn=0.002041,0.003825&t=h&z=18

Two ways, one bridge.

If you disagree with that last one, then you're proposing to undo a whole
lot of work that people have done.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090920/5fa5c4ef/attachment.html>