On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:42:53 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:06 PM, David Paleino<d.pale...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There's no physical barrier, and the lanes are divided by continuous lines > > -- that would be a no-changing-lanes restriction, but I'd still be > > uncomfortable with drawing two separate ways -- that doesn't reflect real > > world. > > > > Satellite image: > > > > http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.12436,13.355808&spn=0.001091,0.002411&t=k&z=19 > > > > (the street from NW is the one from S in my drawing -- > > http://imagebin.ca/view/SjGkG4.html ) > > > > If you zoom in, you can clearly see the horizontal signals (at least at the > > NW street, there's some shadow hiding those in the SW one). > > > > If there are no other suggestions, I'll try to think at something :/ > > You also referred to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_flow_intersection > > I don't remember ever seeing one of these in the wild. > > I don't think that the intersection that you are looking at is a > continuous flow intersection as described in the wikipedia article. > It appears to be a simple cross junction of two one way roads. Is > that correct? If so I would map it with a single node at two > crossing, one-way, ways.
You can't obviously see the vertical signals from the aerial imagery. In the street coming from NW, there is a "continuous flow to left" -- that means you can go left even with a Red-light-signal. In the street coming from SW, there is a "continuous flow to right" -- you can go right regardless of the traffic signal once again. They *are* CFIs. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
