Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 4:41 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > It is not the easiest way of the World...but it is not the most > complicated. First we think to start of the best aproximation: the REAL > aproximation so: > -If the marks are only marks and not physically separation...don't > separate in diff

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

Ok, It is not the easiest way of the World...but it is not the most complicated. First we think to start of the best aproximation: the REAL aproximation so: -If the marks are only marks and not physically separation...don't separate in different ways...because is not REAL. -If the way is double dir

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 06-Apr-17 04:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> >>> Do we have a scheme for tagging such a beast? >>> >> > You can combine turn:lanes [1] with change:lanes [2], the first describe > which lane you have to use for which turn, the second where you c

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On Thursday 06 April 2017 00:29:49 Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 05.04.2017 23:19, Warin wrote: > > Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane > > Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated, > not when a white line is painted. Lane mapping would get you r

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

2017-04-06 0:29 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer : > Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated, > not when a white line is painted. Lane mapping would get you reverted. > +1 if you map lanes as carriageways, as lot of stuff breaks, e.g. routing for emergency situations or ped

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On 2017-04-06 14:33, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 05.04.2017 23:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane >> >> this way routing engines will

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On 05.04.2017 23:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop trying to get

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On 05.04.2017 23:19, Warin wrote: Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated, not when a white line is painted. Lane mapping would get you reverted. this way routing engines will regard them as separ

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane > > this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop > trying to get you from one lane to another. > But then, won't routing engines announce th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop trying to get you from one lane to another. Then do your turn restrictions. On 06-Apr-17 04:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Near where I live, there are several places

[Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

Near where I live, there are several places where lane restrictions continue for several city blocks. These 'advance' turn restrictions are confusing to human drivers, and so far it seems that navigation systems can't cope with them at all. I'm wondering if it's even possible under our current sche