n Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
I was thinking about something similar excepted one important thing :
I think that many contributors don't like to break the way in many
small segments just for turning lanes. I think that adding a simple
node when the turning lane appears would b
e.g. trunk_turnlanes:left:forward=1 meaning that from this point we
have
a left turning lane till the next intersection with a trunk highway
('forward' or 'backward' being relative to the osm way direction as
usual).
So, are you suggesting to use :forward/backward on nodes? I don't think
that
>The tag lanes should be reserved for the straight
>forward lanes.
At a T-junction, the road ending there would then be
lanes=0, given that wording. Nice.
>As a result, we just add a node for a minor information and do not
>damage the existing highways.
There's bound to be, eventually, enormous
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> So, are you suggesting to use :forward/backward on nodes? I don't think that
> would go well. It is worse that using relations, since the node is
> implicitly related with a) direction of a way; b) the fact that way is not
> split at that point
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > The big problem is that mappers think splitting ways is damaging them. Why?
>
> It's just painful to work with many small segments (to add or rename
> tags or use route relations). People editing on such
2011/10/6 Kytömaa Lauri :
> What value does it add, to try to keep the roads from being split midblock?
For the same reasons why the first OSM api had "segments" and was
replaced by "ways". It makes editing and maintenance painful, you
don't see where your street is starting and finishing. Relati
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> >The tag lanes should be reserved for the straight
> >forward lanes.
>
> At a T-junction, the road ending there would then be
> lanes=0, given that wording. Nice.
...And it gets even funnier if you have an intersection where all those
straight forward la
Hi.
Some remarks have been mentioned here already, why this proposal is not
well designed.
Another one is, that it's tackling the lanes-problem, but not solving it.
You propose something for turning lanes - but again restrict it to cars.
The talk page in the wiki contains a question about cycle
Peter Wendorff wrote:
Some remarks have been mentioned here already, why this proposal is
not
well designed.
Another one is, that it's tackling the lanes-problem, but not solving
it.
You propose something for turning lanes - but again restrict it to
cars.
It was not my decision, but was the
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
wrote:
> however, it should not be solved using some data klugde but
> making the tasks you mention easy to do in editors even if the ways would
> contain only two nodes each.
Making the task easier in editor does not work if your schema is
complex.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
> wrote:
> > however, it should not be solved using some data klugde but
> > making the tasks you mention easy to do in editors even if the ways would
> > contain only two nodes each.
>
> Making the task easier in
Pieren wrote:
Making the task easier in editor does not work if your schema is
complex. You can see the current turning lane plugin on JOSM.. .
Yes, actually, that plugin along with the proposal is what made me do
it in the first place. The plugin makes the tagging scheme look simple,
when it
12 matches
Mail list logo
