You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
Reporter: polderrunner [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 9.36am, Friday, 12th June 2009]
Dual carriage highways (trunk,primary etc) consisting of two parallel ways having a oneway tag are now shown in a very fat style, making them too dominant compared to e.g. motorways. This is a request to render trunk/primary/secondary/tertiery having a oneway=yes/true tag at a narrower width than now, say 70% of the current highway widths.
Author: Vid the Kid [Added to the original trac issue at 2.25am, Monday, 13th July 2009]
I just have some thoughts here:
That makes sense for divided highways (dual carriageways) but what about individual major one-way roads (often found in pairs a block apart) in central business districts? They are typically just as wide as the two-way streets in the area. In fact, that's why they do one-way pairs in business districts, to distribute the heavy traffic onto multiple streets where widening would be impractical.
Also, I'm not sure how much this is really a problem. The two halves of a divided highway are typically so close together that they overlap at all but the closest zoom levels, and their widths don't add completely. Actually, the exact "perceived" width of the divided highway will be the basis road's width plus the at-scale distance between the centerlines of the two ways. That will make them only slightly more conspicuous than their single-way counterparts, and that makes sense to me. What doesn't make so much sense is why motorways are so much narrower than trunk, primary, secondary, etcetera, one-way or not.
Author: polderrunner [Added to the original trac issue at 9.04pm, Wednesday, 15th July 2009]
You have a point there. Been to San Francisco last year I know about those 4 lanes oneway streets which of course should be rendered at default width. One solution could be to consider the lanes=* tag when deciding on the width. E.g. render at reduced width if oneway=yes & lanes = 1 or 2 and otherwise use default width. The lanes tag is not yet widely used but that could change.
That trunk and primary highways render wider than motorways is also the thing that bothers me and is really what caused me to make this request. I'm happy about the motorway rendering as it is. The other oneways are too wide, in my opinion.
Author: Habbit [Added to the original trac issue at 11.14am, Friday, 29th October 2010]
I concur with the OP: as a temporary correction, the width of "oneway=yes" ways should be set to that of motorways. Afterwards, an algorithm to determine the drawn width could be devised in order to take into account the declared number of lanes (defaulting to 2 in two-way roads, 1 in non-motorway one-way roads and 2 in motorways).
Reporter: polderrunner
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 9.36am, Friday, 12th June 2009]
Dual carriage highways (trunk,primary etc) consisting of two parallel ways having a oneway tag are now shown in a very fat style, making them too dominant compared to e.g. motorways. This is a request to render trunk/primary/secondary/tertiery having a oneway=yes/true tag at a narrower width than now, say 70% of the current highway widths.
This ticket is related to #1881 (highway links)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: