I use b. Because thats the only way I was/am aware of to tag whats on the ground. A divider.
But yes I would like there to be an easy way to tag it in the same way.. I even think there should be a possibility to tag a physical divider in the same way, because some roads with physical dividers really dont need to be drawn as two seperate ways. Best regards Tobias J 2012/10/15 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > 2012/10/15 Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de>: >> I would choose (a) and reserve separate ways for _actual_ physical >> separation. >> >> One practical reason for doing so is that there would simply be no >> possibility to distinguish legally separate ways from physically >> separate ways if we used the same mapping (splitting the way) for both. >> >> Splitting the way at that point could be considered "tagging for the >> router", in my opinion, and ignores the needs of applications that do >> use OSM for something else than navigation. > > > +1 to all of this. If we want to be able to distinguish physical and > legal separations we have to stick to our own rules. Anyway there will > always remain a slightly unsatisfactory geometry situation on points > like these, because you have to do the transition from 1 way (in the > middle of 4 lanes) to 2 ways (each in the middle of 2 lanes). There is > simply no really elegant way to do this. > > Additionally to the lanes=4 and oneway=yes you could put a divider-tag > on the way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider > even if it doesn't explicitly tell you where the divider is placed you > might be able to infer it from the following ways (at least in this > case). > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
