On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 17:34 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > I didn't do it completely off the top of my head, I did think "I wonder > if secondary_link and tertiary_link will work?" so I threw in a couple > of them, waited for information freeway to update, saw secondary_link > DID work and tertiary_link didn't so I just assumed someone hadn't > updated Map Features and it was a workable option. As for the using > them in the wrong place well that's been made clearer to me now and > I've cleaned up nearly all those issues near me now anyway. > > > Having thought about it a bit now, I think secondary_link and probably > > tertiary_link as well should be made valid values for the highway tag. > > But we should probably introduce this as a proposed feature on the > > wiki for a while before actually using them, hopefully getting at > > least the main renderers to recognise them first. > > Guess the validity of this depends on exactly how those roads are > defined. Which is of course issue of that other thread ;)
Okay. I didn't realise that secondary_link worked correctly with osmarender. Given that's the case, let's keep using it, and I promise not to butcher any more of them. All that remains is to get it documented on the Map Features & Tag:Highway wiki pages. tertiary_link may require some more effort to get off the ground... > > Where > > residential roads have slip lanes, they often have addresses on them > > (cf. slip lanes on more major roads), so would need to verify which > > street at the junction those addresses belong to (quick look at street > > numbers for continuity should do the trick), then name the slip lane > > accordingly. > > > > As an alternative for use with highway=unclassified & > > highway=residential, would tagging the slip lanes and/or central > > turning lanes as highway=service be suitable? > > Ah now you are talking about 'turn left anytime with care' type lanes > where the "_link" option kind of fits, my thoughts were once I realised > anything < secondary wouldn't work with _link and given they're > generally pretty rare just label them as the existing road type with > name. Where they have addresses on them, so we can verify what street they're part of, I agree. Where they don't have addresses on them, there's no way of knowing for sure which of the two intersecting streets they form part of, so I don't think a name would be appropriate. Cheers, Jack. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au