I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The shape of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas cars can make 90 degree turns. So I'll always keep using separate ways for the tram rails. One for each direction of travel. And a way in the middle (on the straight parts) for the highway. An exception to that are dual carriageways, with the rails embedded, but usually the rails are between the carriageways in that case.
Jo 2015-02-08 19:45 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com>: > 2015-02-08 17:48 GMT+01:00 fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com>: > >> Actually, I use an even more general approach: >> railway:forward=tram >> railway:lanes:backward=tram|no >> >> together with access I also use train >> access:lanes:backward=no|yes >> train:lanes:backward=designated|no >> > > I don't understand why you would use railway:forward=* and > railway:lanes:forward=*. Aren't those two redundant? > > Also, why train and not tram? > > I like railway:lanes:forward/backward=* because sometimes you can have > rails on the street which are not used by anything, so using tram/train > doesn't make sense. But if you say tram:lanes:forward/backward=* than that > implies that there are rails there, so no other tags are needed anymore. > > Janko > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
