2009/9/21 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: > If it doesn't affect any routing information, then we shouldn't, because > it's a waste of time, but I don't mind if you do.
It is a waste of time, I'm just trying to show that ways are treated differently depending on the type of way, which doesn't reflect reality and we should be mapping reality. > That could be more easily represented by some sort of "uturn=no" though. My point is, just because you can't u-turn doesn't mean it should be dual carriage way > You'll have to show me an intersection with such lines, or the law. This > looks to me like a passing restriction. I did, one side of the centre line is solid, the other is broken, you cannot cross from the solid side, you can from the broken side. > Well, let's take this intersection: > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=-26.124795,152.574151&panoid=H08s6qv1gLXcd8hGtNhvwg&cbp=12,333.55,,0,2.6&ll=-26.124704,152.574123&spn=0,359.996175&z=18 > > If you want to micromap that, I'd go with dual carriageways. But it isn't dual carriage way, and it makes no sense to map it as such, it would be nice to be able to map the lanes correctly however. > Do we need a method to represent a single bridge with multiple ways? Any > suggestions? Being able to tag lanes along a way maybe? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
