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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> > Mapping ways should follow the legal paths of travel, not the existence
> or
> > non-existence of concrete.  If concrete is the only form of legal
> barrier,
> > then fine, concrete can determine how we map.  But if a painted median is
>
> Where do you draw the line over painted median strips exactly,


If you're allowed to cross it, for instance to make a turn, it should be
represented as one way.  If you aren't, it shouldn't.  In Florida and I
believe most of the US, the legal distinction would be double yellow (
http://www.golocalnet.net/drive/dblyel.htm) means no passing, and should be
represented as one way; double double yellow (
http://www.golocalnet.net/drive/dblyel2.htm) means no crossing, and should
be represented as a dual carriageway.  But that obviously has to be adapted
for each jurisdiction.

the Bruce highway for example allows you to cross in some places and
> doesn't in others, but this is more a case of where it's safe to over
> take or not, should these sections where it's not safe to over take
> mean we draw 2 distinct ways as a result?
>
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-26.134596,152.582068&spn=0,359.990988&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-26.134719,152.583365&panoid=Zqx7qYT6v-zeBfuZnmywdA&cbp=12,270.23,,0,5.75
>

In this case there appear to be no intersections or places to turn, in which
case it doesn't really matter.


> Also how would you do this:
>
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-26.134789,152.590678&spn=0,359.986063&z=17&layer=c&cbll=-26.134677,152.590969&panoid=eVbTF6vxWoolDxDVBQpWNg&cbp=12,77.27,,0,5.07
>
> It's legal to cross the road from one side, but not the other, etc etc
> etc...
>

I'm not talking about where passing is allowed, I'm talking about where
turning is allowed.  In any case, once again there appear to be no
intersections or places to turn, in which case it doesn't really matter.

If you can direct me to a site which explains these lines and what they
mean, I can give you a further response.


> > But if there is a concrete barrier in place, you agree we might have two
> > ways going over one bridge.  So all this stuff about mapping individual
> > lanes is off-topic.
>
> You didn't express this opinion earlier, you were trying to show
> multiple ways where there is no physical barrier.
>

Okay, fine, so we are in agreement?  All this stuff about mapping individual
lanes is off-topic?  We need a method to represent a single bridge with
multiple ways?  Any suggestions?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090920/daa5e844/attachment.html>