On Aug 20, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/20 Peter Körner <osm-li...@mazdermind.de>: >> Wmm why can't we say: >> >> 1L for the leftmost lane >> 2L for the second lane from left >> 1R for the rightmost lane >> >> where left and right is seen in driving-direction. So then the 2 >> rightmode lane seperates you can talk about 1R and 2R. >> > > I'm opposing this approach of just tagging different lanes to one way > as this gets too complicated in complex situations (I know situations > with more than 18 "lanes"). I'd prefer to get to a > map-all-lanes-and-dividers-as-separate-ways-approach and then > recombine them with a relation, describing the possible changing from > one lane to the other (possible-all-time, possible but legally > prohibited, divider height=0.2m / 2m (Kerb/wall, whatever), green). > This "spacial" representation would also allow to positionate > additional objects at their actual spacial location (e.g. > traffic-lights, bollards, speed-cams, guard-rails, lower kerbs, > sculptures, trees, traffic-signs, benches, etc.) >
how could you do this practically? aligning 18 lanes as individual ways is impossible in the current data model and editors. agree that ways with dividers should be separate ways because routing must know crossing is not allowed. adding this info to any lane concept will make it too complicated as soon as crossing is allowed all lanes can be modeled with any multi lane numbering scheme. having them as separate ways is wrong then because routing will not work for lane changes. > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
