2009/9/19 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: > 2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > >> what do you mean? We are already doing this: lanes=3 > > That only says how many lanes, it doesn't describe restrictions or > properties of individual lanes. > >> 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 > > No, more like this: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/4/46/Lane_group_example1_screen_2.png >
yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections, etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a geometrically reduced system: it will get way too confusing. If we map lanes where they are, there is another benefit: positional correctness and ease of topological structure: you see what you do. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
