[OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
John Smith
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 20 20:03:20 BST 2009
2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> 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
As I point out below, you can't turn depending on the centre line not
being solid. Should we create multiple ways for intermittent areas
where you can't cross or not?
>> 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.
Irrelevent since you keep bringing up u-turns you can't do that either.
> 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.
the link above you can only cross the road depending on the lane you are in.
> If you can direct me to a site which explains these lines and what they
> mean, I can give you a further response.
It's really simple, solid line = you can't cross to turn in any
respect, colour of the paint is irrelevent they used to use yellow
they switched to white the law is still the same.
>> 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?
How could we be in agreement you've completely ignored my last point.
More information about the talk
mailing list