I live in hope that, one day, we might have documented defaults or
implied values per territory. Until that time, we may have to map both
the tangible artefact (solid line) and the implications for routing (no
u-turns etc.) separately. They are distinct concepts, related by the
rules of the territory.
Colin
On 21/08/2012 09:47, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Tobias Knerr <[email protected]> wrote:
So I think that mapping divider based on pattern type is a better choice
than mapping them based on their legal effects.
Until now in OSM tagging, all turning restrictions have been described
by the restriction, not by the traffic sign itself like "arrow_up" or
"arrow_left_crossed-out". Your argument about "unambiguous if you know
the law locally" is true in both translations. Excepted that with
"solid_line", you ask the applications to know all local laws arround
the world. With the value "no_u_turn", applications or other
contributors around the world understand immediately what it means.
Your second argument about multiple tags is correct but the list of
line patterns on the ground can be very long as well (double solid
line, dotted lines on one side, colours, etc).
Pieren
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
