On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> That's a problem with the rendering, not with the mapping. > > Unless you want to write routines for pre-processing two almost-parallel > ways back into a single way so it can be rendered neatly, I suggest it's a > mapping problem.
Yep, a very hard rendering problem, or an easy mapping problem. > Everything about a dual carriageway can (now) be expressed using turn > restriction relations, and it would probably be better if it were done that > way. I don't want to be as ambitious as genuine dual carriage motorways, but it would be great for minor roads. Here's an example I came across (I didn't map it): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.824316&lon=144.940393&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF See Hartley St there? It's a tiny pathetic service road that happens to have some concrete blocks down the middle of some sections. I can just picture how nicely this would render with the right tagging and styles... Another example, nearby: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.81993&lon=144.960348&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF Queensbridge St, where it splits from the bridge itself. The two lanes are actually separated by a decent chunk of concrete. The northbound lane then splits again just before hitting Flinders St. I don't blame the mapper for not representing all this detail, because ultimately it doesn't really make a difference to anyone using the map, and it will render as a mess. Another really cool thing you could do with this proposal (not currently suggested) is a width parameter. Then you could really precisely control the separation of the lanes, which are now a bit hit and miss - it's very hard to specify how much gap there is, because you have to guess how wide the renderer will think the road is, then compensate for that. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
