2009/9/19 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: >> don't get you. Isn't "mapping lanes" just the same like what I >> suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but >> you DO need relations to combine them into streets (indicating kind of >> separation and / or possibility to change lanes). I was in this case >> just talking about the bridge, but for streets I can imagine the same >> procedure (and add green, dividers, walls, curbs, etc. as well) > > Why do we need relations to combine "lanes" into "ways". > > Wouldn't it make more sense to tag lanes of ways? >
what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 In simple cases you don't need it, and when it get's complex, IMHO explicit mapping is the only transparent and easy way to solve the issue. One of my favourite example is this situation: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=de&ie=UTF8&ll=41.866627,12.49679&spn=0.000684,0.001206&t=h&z=20 you will get just confusion when you start to count lanes and tag things like lane:11=oneway, no_right_turn Usually at crossings you will have different turnrestrictions for parallel lanes. Lanes are starting and ending (even small ones as for busses, to turn, etc.). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
