Am 06.06.2012 14:09, schrieb Pieren:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Simone Saviolo<simone.savi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On the other hand I would propose to add area=yes to avoid confusion both
at data consumer side as well as on mapper side (yes, they MEANT it to be a
mini roundabout, I guess, because they knew it's an area without obstacle in
the middle).
+1
+1 for me too.
I'm confused now. You mean an "area=yes" on a node tagged as mini_roundabout ?
no!
I added the idea of area=yes for mini_roundabouts tagged as a circular way.
A node tagged as mini_roundabout is not touched by this idea.
-1 for "area=yes" for something that is traversable only for wide vehicles
well it is traverable (in the sense of being able to traverse) by all
vehicles. That this is not allowed for all vehicles may be adressed out
of the roundabout-property by any application using it.
This is a malus only for applications that
1) are able to do routing across areas (most router don't do that yet
afaik) and
2) don't know about the roundabout issue to handle it separately
-1 for "area=yes" on nodes.
sure, didn't propose that (at least didn't intend to propose it)
-1 for circles with "area=yes" and implied oneway restriction.
This is probably a valid point, and yes; but it's again only a
contradiction for routing, and again only under the two assumptions from
above.
regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
