On 3 July 2012 15:03, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/7/3 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make >>> you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. >> >> I discover the overtake tag: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking >> >> but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that "overtaking=no" means "no >> u-turn" as well. Could we write this assertion ? > > > -1 > overtaking isn't used very much either (less than 2000 times), and as > written above: a solid line is not only about overtaking and u-turns: > you are never allowed to cross it in any case (besides you are an > emergency vehicle in case of an emergency or similar, e.g. you are > also not allowed to turn left). > > I think that the divider-proposal has a much better semantics compared > to overtaking. Lets tag directly what we mean, not "overtaking=no" if > we want to say "no u-turn".
In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. /Markus _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
