I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
some stuff in the talk page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction
Anyone care to provide an explanation?
The reason I ask is
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC wrote:
> I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
> don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
> some stuff in the talk page
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction
>
> An
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>
>> I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
>> don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
>> some stuff in the talk page
>>
>> http://wik
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
>>> don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. T
SteveC wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>> If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is
>> one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction
>> could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way.
>> This of course
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC
>>> wrote:
>>>
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:34, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> SteveC wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>>> If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is
>>> one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction
>>> could apply when coming from either
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:34:51 +0300, Tobias Knerr
wrote:
>
>|A
>|
>|
> x| B
> ---*--
>|
>|
>|
>
> Imagine this situation, ways A and B with a common node x. You are
> moving on A from north to south and are not allowed to turn into
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 14:45, David Lynch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 14:25, SteveC wrote:
> >> If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is
> >> one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction
> >> could apply when coming from either of the ends
2009/4/23 SteveC :
>
> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC
wrote:
> I don't see a clear explanation as to
SteveC schrieb:
> Ok so in that case... why don't we make best practice to split your way
> A in to two directions, rather than hundreds of little ways?
You mean something like that
^A1 |A2
| |
| |
| | B
---*-*--
| |
| |
| v
with
If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself,
it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for
the consumer to work out, in that it would have to decide which way the
two nodes were on.
|A
*a
|
c| b
-*---*---*-
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:56:09 +0200, andrzej zaborowski
wrote:
> 2009/4/23 SteveC :
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>>>
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +
2009/4/23 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) :
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:56:09 +0200, andrzej zaborowski
> wrote:
>> Or something like this is common:
>>
>> B C
>> \ |
>> \ |
>> \|
>> |
>> |
>> A
>>
>> where the straight line is considered a turn even though it's
>> straight, and the tur
David Earl schrieb:
> If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself,
> it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it?
There was a proposal that suggested exactly that, "xrestriction":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Relation:xrestriction
Hasn't been used a lot.
On 23 Apr 2009, at 22:56, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> 2009/4/23 SteveC :
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +030
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:16 PM, David Earl wrote:
> If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself,
> it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for
> the consumer to work out, in that it would have to decide which way the
> two nodes were on.
an
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:49:54 +0100, Matt Amos wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:16 PM, David Earl
> wrote:
>> If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself,
>> it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for
>> the consumer to work out, in that it
What is your problem with having way sections between each intersection
instead of one long way?
The AND data in the Netherlands has ways that go only from intersection
to intersection, we already split the ways at bridges, tunnels, maxspeed
changes, name changes etc. Apparently the method of s
> What is your problem with having way sections between each
> intersection
> instead of one long way?
I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've
always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant section. But I
can understand that there is a bit of an issue with doing such
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:01:20 +0100, "Ed Loach" wrote:
>> What is your problem with having way sections between each
>> intersection
>> instead of one long way?
>
> I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've
> always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant section. But
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:01:20 +0300, Ed Loach wrote:
>> What is your problem with having way sections between each
>> intersection
>> instead of one long way?
>
> I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've
> always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant section. But I
Ed Loach wrote:
> I don't know how
> routing engines work out when one way at a junction has priority
> over another (or whether they even bother - I guess the best
> available at present is to compare names and/or refs).
Why do we need to know which way has priority? Yes it is nice to know
some
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, kaerast wrote:
> Why do we need to know which way has priority? Yes it is nice to know
> some times, but no other maps show this and it just isn't necessary. It
> tends to be "slower" roads which you need to give way on, and these are
> already given a lower pr
24 matches
Mail list logo
