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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

If it doesn't affect any routing information, then we shouldn't, because
it's a waste of time, but I don't mind if you do.

>>
> 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.
>

That could be more easily represented by some sort of "uturn=no" though.

> 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.
>

You'll have to show me an intersection with such lines, or the law.  This
looks to me like a passing restriction.

> 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.
>

Well, let's take this intersection:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=-26.124795,152.574151&panoid=H08s6qv1gLXcd8hGtNhvwg&cbp=12,333.55,,0,2.6&ll=-26.124704,152.574123&spn=0,359.996175&z=18

If you want to micromap that, I'd go with dual carriageways.

>> 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.
>

Do 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/20090920/061308f8/attachment.html>