On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, put it this way: if this was implemented, I would duplicate far > fewer roads in future.
If it worked (and I really haven't delved into the details enough to check), I might be convinced to add division information where I otherwise wouldn't bother (because the current method of creating a dual carriageway is a pain). > I don't know if I would go around converting > existing ones, though. If you don't know....that scares me. > If a router ignores the tags, it will occasionally try and send you > through a barrier. For a U-turn? Whether or not a U-turn is legal should probably be treated as "unknown" by routers in most cases. We're currently not really mapping that at all. OTOH, if you're talking about a left turn, I thought the point was that this would be handled by turn restrictions just like would be done currently. > If a renderer ignores them, then it might be hiding > important information from the consumer. But there are certainly > already plenty of divided roads which are not marked as such. Yeah, I see this as maybe a potential solution in between using a single unmarked way and using a dual carriageway. Although, looking at the proposal, it doesn't look finished - something you seem to admit yourself. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
