you are totally right! a service-highway with onway=yes if needed is the best and simplest way todo :)
mario Michael Collinson schrieb: > Or just connect the parking area (or node if really tiny or > unsurveyed size) to the road with a highway=service and use > oneway=yes if appropriate. Simple, requires no extra tags and renders > out with current renderers. > > Mike > > At 07:04 PM 12/18/2007, Mario Salvini wrote: > >> Hi Gregory, >> >> good idea, but lets make it that way: >> >> tag the node: "area_access" + "direction= in/out/both" (where "both" is >> defaut if "direction" is not set) >> >> >> mario >> >> >> Gregory schrieb: >> >>> In that case you might aswell propose area_exit=yes too. >>> >>> >>> On 18/12/2007, *Mario Salvini* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> How about a TAG "area_entrance=yes" to mark the possibilities to >>> enter >>> e.g. a parking-area? >>> >>> >>> mario >>> >>> >>> Gregory schrieb: >>> > I knew about the work around that required us to add an area and a >>> > node. I lot of the time I've been placing that extra node closer to >>> > the entrance of the car park (really useful when the area is >>> alongside >>> > more than one road), sometimes I use a node in the way. >>> > >>> > I think it would be better for us to move to more sensible data, >>> the >>> > way we're currently doing is like two carparks (one a node and >>> one an >>> > area). >>> > What if it was proposed/passed that a relationship connect the >>> node to >>> > the area but keep rendering how it is. Then after some time when >>> more >>> > nodes are related to their area than seperate, renderers can be >>> > updated to do as suggested. >>> > "It should certainly be possible to use a relationship to >>> > associate your node with your area, and then have the automatic >>> > icon-drawer only draw an icon at the centre of gravity if there >>> isn't >>> > an applicable node associated with the area via a relationship." >>> -Abi >>> > >>> > So even if we don't use the relationship for a long time, it's >>> surley >>> > best to look the future and the best way for things to be done? >>> > I would also propose some sort of public=yes/no/customers tag. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Gregory >>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> > http://www.livingwithdragons.com < http://www.livingwithdragons.com> >>> > >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > talk mailing list >>> > talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> >>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> talk mailing list >>> talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >>> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> http://www.livingwithdragons.com >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> talk mailing list >>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >> > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
