Am 6. März 2012 10:43 schrieb Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Ross Scanlon <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: >> Definitely not how to map an intersection. AU list have had several >> discussions on this and it's junk mapping.
+1 for "star-crossing"=junk > I still believe that mapping each lane is easier than using verbose > and encrypted tags (probably that need some special tools on editors > to handle the lanes together). +1, dedicated geometry is much easier to understand and lets it become much clearer where to associate the attributes to and is easier to compare with reality or aerial imagery rather then using tags and have the lanes represented implicitly. It does require a relation (e.g. the proposed type=area) to indicate that there is not dual carriageways but only lanes (and of course for compatibility no highway-tag on the lanes), so that you might be able to change any time (or also not if there is an uninterrupted marking). So it might be more work to create this but I think it will be more stable and easier to maintain afterwards. > But you are right, drawing intersections like here is a nightmare and > is not reflecting the reality : the intersection is only a square > where lanes are not painted on the ground. It should be modeled in the > same way in OSM: just a highway polygon (tagged intersection=yes?) -1 to the polygon: also on a crossing there is directed traffic even if the lanes are not marked. A highway-polygon is representing an area without traffic direction. If there is a direction, use a way. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
