On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm
<frede...@remote.org <mailto:frede...@remote.org>>:
The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn
restrictions
at junctions.
this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions,
wouldn't it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a
line that cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this
on the junction nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of
turn restriction relations which would be already implied?
I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did
not fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under
which circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which
meaning? Maybe we should not map the lines physically, but according
to their legal meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen):
divider that cannot be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed
legally, divider that can be crossed but only for turning left not for
u-turns, etc.
Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road?
Centre cannot be crossed (all)
Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed)
Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed)
Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed)
Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed)
centre
=no_crossing/no_u_crossing/no_turn_crossing/no_off_crossing/no_on_crossing/yes_crossing/???
Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the
road driving.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
