On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ah. So I think the issue here is whether a lane can be: > > 1) explicitly traced out as a "way" (i.e. series of nodes), or > 2) assumed to follow the same path as the "parent" way > > If a lane is related to its adjacent lanes and "parent" way through > the use of a relation, I think 1) is necessary. Right? Because the > members of > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lane_and_lane_group, > for example, are themselves ways (i.e. series of nodes)? >
I'm really not familiar enough with that proposal to say. But you do raise a good point that 1 and 2 seem to be mutually exclusive.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
