On 18.10.2012 21:56, Alberto wrote:
> I think that tagging the effect is more important than the actual behavior
> of the sign.
> If you are in an unknown country, what would you like from your GPS, that it
> gives you correct navigation instructions or correct rendering?
Both. ;)
In either case,
>Two issues I see here:
>* type:divider - this key doesn't seem very intuitive to me. No, I don't
have a better one right now but I'll start thinking ;-)
>* values: if we tag the way the divider looks, any application has to
understand all values in all countries. I'll ask again: do we really gain
2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
> Another possible idea (= not the same as a finished solution) would be
> to introduce something like this:
>
> type:divider = solid_line|double_solid_line|dashed_line|kerb
>
> Basically, use the idea of lanes, but a different suffix - and
> consequently a different numbe
2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
> You can distinguish at most 4 types of dividers with two pairs of yes/no
> - but there are a lot more types out there. That's a big part of the
> original divider proposal, which even includes values like "dots".
> For example, how do you reconstruct the distinction betw
On 17.10.2012 13:19, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
>> This problem does indeed exist, but it only appears with oneway roads
>
> I don't like something that only works in case a but not in b.
This was merely meant as an interesting observation that I wanted to
point out for tho
Sorry, I didn't want to be rude.
I only want to show an example why those special characters - that
from time to time are suggested - will not work.
Martin
2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
> 2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald :
>> 2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
>>> Since It was your first idea I wanted to te
2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald :
> 2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
>> Since It was your first idea I wanted to tell you my first idea. That
>> is to let the diveders in the lanes tag represent the lines.
>> | (solid line)
>> : (dashed line)
>> :| (crossable from on side)
>> turn:lanes=left:through|through
2012/10/17 Tobias Johansson :
> Since It was your first idea I wanted to tell you my first idea. That
> is to let the diveders in the lanes tag represent the lines.
> | (solid line)
> : (dashed line)
> :| (crossable from on side)
> turn:lanes=left:through|through|:right (for example)
Seen someth
2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
> This problem does indeed exist, but it only appears with oneway roads
I don't like something that only works in case a but not in b.
>> Now (a time ago) I came up with something different: have a look at
>> part 3 of the first example:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
Since It was your first idea I wanted to tell you my first idea. That
is to let the diveders in the lanes tag represent the lines.
| (solid line)
: (dashed line)
:| (crossable from on side)
turn:lanes=left:through|through|:right (for example)
2 big drawbacks.
1. The :lanes tag is not "one" tag s
On 17.10.2012 09:31, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Obviously we need some kind of tagging for lane dividers. Initially
> when writing the :lanes proposal I though about reusing the divider
> proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider
>
> But this has one serious drawback: if
Hi!
Obviously we need some kind of tagging for lane dividers. Initially
when writing the :lanes proposal I though about reusing the divider
proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider
But this has one serious drawback: if you have a road with four lanes
you would tag e.
12 matches
Mail list logo
