Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[m]

Hi, 

I want to share some follow up from our team (this is ongoing).

* We looked more closely at the issues of naming driveways. We identified a 
total of 16 changesets that had named driveways in them that we added, and we 
fixed these if they hadn’t been already.
* We have discussed and tightened up our best practices and policies dealing 
with evaluating and using external data sources, especially when the 
information conflicts with local mappers’ work. 

The entire team appreciates your close scrutiny of our work. We feel bad about 
the mistakes we make, and the energy wasted on fixing. I know that we have also 
made a large number of good improvements to the map in Canada; improvements 
that will help especially navigation use of OSM.

Please don’t hesitate to share new and ongoing concerns. I will follow up as 
the team works on improving our process.

Best,
Martijn

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:55 PM, m...@rtijn.org wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Stewart C. Russell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On 2017-04-25 12:43 AM, Andrew Lester wrote:
>>> Okay Telenav, you win. …
>> 
>> Yes, that must be frustrating. Would hate to lose you as a contributor.
> 
> Alienating and driving away local contributors is the last thing we would 
> want to accomplish!
> 
> Let’s try and move past hurtful statements about us and our intent, and 
> towards some hopefully constructive ways to fix mistakes we have made and 
> prevent future ones from happening.
> 
> Let me suggest this: I will take the concerns raised here to our team and get 
> back to the list before the end of the week with proposed next steps to fix 
> where possible. We will use Github tickets to track this. This is something 
> new we are starting to make our work and processes more visible and 
> transparent: https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues 
> . You can follow 
> along and chime in there as well. 
> 
> My invitation to set up a town hall meeting with you and some of our team 
> members also still stands.
> 
> Andrew — I added the issues you mentioned in your email as tickets. Some of 
> them need more information to be actionable though, I hope you are able to 
> provide some.
> 
> Stewart:
> 
>> 
>> They're also adding futile turn restrictions at the join of one-way
>> on/off ramps, like this:
>> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7096540 
>> 
> 
> That changeset was closed more than a month ago, we stopped adding these 
> ‘implicit’ restrictions after the issue was first raised and it had become 
> clear that there needed to be more discussion around them.
>> 
>> (in a huge changeset, with the super-helpful comment “small updates”, no
>> less)
> 
> You’re right, that’s not very helpful at all — we actually recently tightened 
> up our changeset commit best practices to avoid things like huge changesets 
> and meaningless comments. We published this on Github as well (feedback 
> welcome): 
> https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/wiki/Changeset-Best-Practices
>  
> 
> 
> I hope this helps us move forward.
> 
> Martijn
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[m]

Yes, if you ask me, changeset comments are (and will stay) the #1 place to 
discuss mapping issues. If a mapper continues to do questionable edits, the 
public channels like this mailing list are a good place to go to. 

To look at recent changeset comments, I use Pascal Neis’s tool. If you haven’t 
seen that yet you should definitely check it out: 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=Canada#5/48.805/-99.802 
 

So like I said in my other response just now, GitHub issues are secondary to 
that, more like a convenient way for us to track and for  mappers to see what 
projects we are proposing and working on, and if you happen to have a Github 
account you can also comment. 

Sorry that was not more clear from the outset.

Martijn

> On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> 
> On 2017-04-25 11:55 PM, m...@rtijn.org wrote:
>> 
>> Let me suggest this: I will take the concerns raised here to our team
>> and get back to the list before the end of the week with proposed next
>> steps to fix where possible. We will use Github tickets to track
>> this.
> 
> As a process suggestion, may I recommend some integration with OSM
> changeset discussion? We ran into an issue last year when Mapbox was
> also adding turn restrictions. There was some friction between local
> mappers and Mapbox staff, as mappers asked questions in changeset
> discussion and didn't see the tickets on Github, while Mapbox staff
> didn't respond to the changeset discussion and assumed the Github
> tickets were authoritative.
> 
> I know that Github issues are the industry standard, and the OSM
> comment/discussion mechanisms may seem a little quaint, but we risk
> talking past one another if we splinter the discussion.
> 
> cheers,
> Stewart
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[m]

Yes, I agree with you, and we will keep discussing through the ‘real’ OSM 
channels. I don’t expect people to sign up for Github. I see it more as a 
public way for us to track our mapping projects, so that everyone can see 
what’s going on and respond there if they choose to. I definitely don’t see it 
as the only / exclusive way to discuss.

Martijn

> On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> Hi Martijn,
> 
> Am 26.04.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Stewart C. Russell:
>> I know that Github issues are the industry standard, and the OSM
>> comment/discussion mechanisms may seem a little quaint, but we risk
>> talking past one another if we splinter the discussion.
> 
> Just my 2 cent as a non-Canadian. I think you, Martijn, cannot expect an
> average mapper to sign up for Github (a platform which belongs neither
> to the OSMF nor to any local chapter) just to be able to complain about
> someone else edits. There is already a plenty of platforms which can be
> used to discuss things in the OSM universe, changeset discussion and
> this mailing list are two of them.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael
> 
> -- 
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James]

For once, I agree with Nakaner.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> Hi Martijn,
>
> Am 26.04.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Stewart C. Russell:
> > I know that Github issues are the industry standard, and the OSM
> > comment/discussion mechanisms may seem a little quaint, but we risk
> > talking past one another if we splinter the discussion.
>
> Just my 2 cent as a non-Canadian. I think you, Martijn, cannot expect an
> average mapper to sign up for Github (a platform which belongs neither
> to the OSMF nor to any local chapter) just to be able to complain about
> someone else edits. There is already a plenty of platforms which can be
> used to discuss things in the OSM universe, changeset discussion and
> this mailing list are two of them.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Martijn,

Am 26.04.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Stewart C. Russell:
> I know that Github issues are the industry standard, and the OSM
> comment/discussion mechanisms may seem a little quaint, but we risk
> talking past one another if we splinter the discussion.

Just my 2 cent as a non-Canadian. I think you, Martijn, cannot expect an
average mapper to sign up for Github (a platform which belongs neither
to the OSMF nor to any local chapter) just to be able to complain about
someone else edits. There is already a plenty of platforms which can be
used to discuss things in the OSM universe, changeset discussion and
this mailing list are two of them.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-25 11:55 PM, m...@rtijn.org wrote:
> 
> Let me suggest this: I will take the concerns raised here to our team
> and get back to the list before the end of the week with proposed next
> steps to fix where possible. We will use Github tickets to track
> this.

As a process suggestion, may I recommend some integration with OSM
changeset discussion? We ran into an issue last year when Mapbox was
also adding turn restrictions. There was some friction between local
mappers and Mapbox staff, as mappers asked questions in changeset
discussion and didn't see the tickets on Github, while Mapbox staff
didn't respond to the changeset discussion and assumed the Github
tickets were authoritative.

I know that Github issues are the industry standard, and the OSM
comment/discussion mechanisms may seem a little quaint, but we risk
talking past one another if we splinter the discussion.

cheers,
 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[m]

Hi all, 

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> 
> On 2017-04-25 12:43 AM, Andrew Lester wrote:
>> Okay Telenav, you win. …
> 
> Yes, that must be frustrating. Would hate to lose you as a contributor.

Alienating and driving away local contributors is the last thing we would want 
to accomplish!

Let’s try and move past hurtful statements about us and our intent, and towards 
some hopefully constructive ways to fix mistakes we have made and prevent 
future ones from happening.

Let me suggest this: I will take the concerns raised here to our team and get 
back to the list before the end of the week with proposed next steps to fix 
where possible. We will use Github tickets to track this. This is something new 
we are starting to make our work and processes more visible and transparent: 
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues 
. You can follow 
along and chime in there as well. 

My invitation to set up a town hall meeting with you and some of our team 
members also still stands.

Andrew — I added the issues you mentioned in your email as tickets. Some of 
them need more information to be actionable though, I hope you are able to 
provide some.

Stewart:

> 
> They're also adding futile turn restrictions at the join of one-way
> on/off ramps, like this:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7096540

That changeset was closed more than a month ago, we stopped adding these 
‘implicit’ restrictions after the issue was first raised and it had become 
clear that there needed to be more discussion around them.
> 
> (in a huge changeset, with the super-helpful comment “small updates”, no
> less)

You’re right, that’s not very helpful at all — we actually recently tightened 
up our changeset commit best practices to avoid things like huge changesets and 
meaningless comments. We published this on Github as well (feedback welcome): 
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/wiki/Changeset-Best-Practices
 


I hope this helps us move forward.

Martijn___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-25 12:43 AM, Andrew Lester wrote:
> Okay Telenav, you win. …

Yes, that must be frustrating. Would hate to lose you as a contributor.

They're also adding futile turn restrictions at the join of one-way
on/off ramps, like this:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7096540

(in a huge changeset, with the super-helpful comment “small updates”, no
less)

While you might be able to haul a U-ey round these, pretty sure the road
regulations disallow it, along with basic common sense and steering
geometry.

cheers,
 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James]

I've caught them also adding roads in Ottawa that dont exist, despite
having OpenStreetCam imagery available

Like here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.42203/-75.63455
That added the branch that connects lemieux street to overpass/labelle
street despite this being paved over 2+ years ago...

On Apr 25, 2017 12:45 AM, "Andrew Lester"  wrote:

Okay Telenav, you win.

I've come across many mapping issues over the last few weeks, and nearly
all of them have been created by Telenav mappers. These include malformed
restrictions that prevent legal routing (these are in addition to the
subjective turn restrictions discussed previously), adding names to
driveways in strata developments (that I had previously removed), replacing
my on-the-ground mapping with their own based solely on out-of-date imagery
or the often-questionable Geobase, wildly incorrect highway
classifications, and much more. Since these mappers seem to be intent on
destroying the map (their actions can't be classified as anything but
destructive), I'm throwing in the towel. If Telenav wishes to pay their
employees to degrade the quality of the map, there isn't much I can do as a
lone hobbyist in my spare time. At the rate I'm seeing things going, it
won't be long until the OSM database has been degraded to the state that
Google Maps is in these days since they started letting any yahoo edit
their map.

Going forward, I'm going to stick to mapping trails (which I sincerely hope
Telenav doesn't branch out to), things like parks, and adding new roads. If
a Telenav mapper later comes along and removes that new/realigned road
because it doesn't look like that on Bing, then I guess they'd win again.
I'm no longer going to clean up after Telenav, because they don't appear to
want a quality map. I'll just have to accept that the routing on my
OSM-based Garmin maps will gradually degrade and will likely contain
routing issues, so I'll be careful about selecting my own route.

I used to promote OSM as a great map that had benefits over others like
Google, but I'm going to stop doing so because I no longer believe that.
Congratulations, Telenav. You've beaten a heavy mapper into submission.
You're free to degrade the map in the Victoria area as much as you want,
and I won't fight back anymore.

...at least the Telenav employees still get paid, so someone benefits from
all of this in some twisted way...

Andrew Lester
Victoria, BC, Canada

--
*From: *m...@rtijn.org
*To: *"James Mast" 
*Cc: *"OSM US" , "talk-ca" <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
*Sent: *Wednesday, April 5, 2017 6:00:35 AM

*Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James — Thanks. This means that at the very least we need to check on a
jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis if these turns are allowed or not.

Just as a data point, Google maps won’t let you make that turn either [1].
That’s not to argue that I am right in any way, just to show that false
assumptions regarding turns are made outside of OSM.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.586229,-80.
0446722/40.586796,-80.0438587/@40.5879274,-80.0482634,17.
23z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0


On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:31 PM, James Mast  wrote:

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the
right turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane
being closed when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were
using it as a temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the
bridge they were replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that
was on the other side of the intersection.

-James
--
*From:* Martijn van Exel 
*Sent:* Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
*To:* James Mast
*Cc:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of
your example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see
there is that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?)
closed to traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the
intersection? Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case,
based on the info I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no
restriction would be necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because
of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that
'when there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team
is not adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I
am looking for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also)
as to traffic regulations that would make adding these restrictions not
only valid but also a boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want
us 

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Andrew Lester]

Okay Telenav, you win. 

I've come across many mapping issues over the last few weeks, and nearly all of 
them have been created by Telenav mappers. These include malformed restrictions 
that prevent legal routing (these are in addition to the subjective turn 
restrictions discussed previously), adding names to driveways in strata 
developments (that I had previously removed), replacing my on-the-ground 
mapping with their own based solely on out-of-date imagery or the 
often-questionable Geobase, wildly incorrect highway classifications, and much 
more. Since these mappers seem to be intent on destroying the map (their 
actions can't be classified as anything but destructive), I'm throwing in the 
towel. If Telenav wishes to pay their employees to degrade the quality of the 
map, there isn't much I can do as a lone hobbyist in my spare time. At the rate 
I'm seeing things going, it won't be long until the OSM database has been 
degraded to the state that Google Maps is in these days since they started 
letting any yahoo edit their map. 

Going forward, I'm going to stick to mapping trails (which I sincerely hope 
Telenav doesn't branch out to), things like parks, and adding new roads. If a 
Telenav mapper later comes along and removes that new/realigned road because it 
doesn't look like that on Bing, then I guess they'd win again. I'm no longer 
going to clean up after Telenav, because they don't appear to want a quality 
map. I'll just have to accept that the routing on my OSM-based Garmin maps will 
gradually degrade and will likely contain routing issues, so I'll be careful 
about selecting my own route. 

I used to promote OSM as a great map that had benefits over others like Google, 
but I'm going to stop doing so because I no longer believe that. 
Congratulations, Telenav. You've beaten a heavy mapper into submission. You're 
free to degrade the map in the Victoria area as much as you want, and I won't 
fight back anymore. 

...at least the Telenav employees still get paid, so someone benefits from all 
of this in some twisted way... 

Andrew Lester 
Victoria, BC, Canada 


From: m...@rtijn.org 
To: "James Mast"  
Cc: "OSM US" , "talk-ca"  
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 6:00:35 AM 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 

James — Thanks. This means that at the very least we need to check on a 
jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis if these turns are allowed or not. 

Just as a data point, Google maps won’t let you make that turn either [1]. 
That’s not to argue that I am right in any way, just to show that false 
assumptions regarding turns are made outside of OSM. 

[1] 
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.586229,-80.0446722/40.586796,-80.0438587/@40.5879274,-80.0482634,17.23z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
 





On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:31 PM, James Mast < rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > wrote: 

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the right 
turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane. The slip lane being closed 
when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary. They were using it as a 
temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they were 
replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the other side 
of the intersection. 

-James 

From: Martijn van Exel < m...@rtijn.org > 
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM 
To: James Mast 
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org ; OSM US 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 
James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.) 

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them. 

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well. 

Martijn 


BQ_BEGIN

On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast < rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > wrote: 




Ma

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[m]

James — Thanks. This means that at the very least we need to check on a 
jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis if these turns are allowed or not. 

Just as a data point, Google maps won’t let you make that turn either [1]. 
That’s not to argue that I am right in any way, just to show that false 
assumptions regarding turns are made outside of OSM.

[1] 
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.586229,-80.0446722/40.586796,-80.0438587/@40.5879274,-80.0482634,17.23z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
 
<https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.586229,-80.0446722/40.586796,-80.0438587/@40.5879274,-80.0482634,17.23z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0>


> On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:31 PM, James Mast  wrote:
> 
> Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the 
> right turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane 
> being closed when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were using 
> it as a temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they 
> were replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the 
> other side of the intersection.
> 
> -James
> From: Martijn van Exel 
> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
> To: James Mast
> Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>  
> James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
> example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
> that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
> traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the 
> intersection? Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, 
> based on the info I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no 
> restriction would be necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because 
> of <> above.)
> 
> I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
> there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
> adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am 
> looking for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to 
> traffic regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid 
> but also a boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add 
> these if there is no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value 
> to adding them.
> 
> I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
> I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.
> 
> Martijn
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast > <mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
>> still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
>> you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
>> 
>> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this 
>> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false 
>> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right 
>> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying 
>> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] 
>> would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to 
>> be added here.
>> 
>> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in 
>> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can 
>> see why Andrew was upset about this.
>> 
>> -James
>> 
>> [1] 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
>>  
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552>
>> [2] 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
>>  
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431>
>> [3] 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>>  
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614,-80.04461;40.58680,-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457>
>> From: Stewart C. Russell mailto:scr...@gmail.com>>
>> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James Mast]

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the right 
turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane being closed 
when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were using it as a 
temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they were 
replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the other side 
of the intersection.


-James


From: Martijn van Exel 
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
To: James Mast
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast 
mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457



From: Stewart C. Russell mailto:scr...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James]

I've made it easier for everyone I sent an email to the local police
station about the legalities of turning right at the light vs taking the
ramp/turning lane. Hopefully they will answer me.

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of
> your example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see
> there is that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?)
> closed to traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the
> intersection? Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case,
> based on the info I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no
> restriction would be necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because
> of <> above.)
>
> I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that
> 'when there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team
> is not adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I
> am looking for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also)
> as to traffic regulations that would make adding these restrictions not
> only valid but also a boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want
> us to add these if there is no confusion regarding correctness and there is
> added value to adding them.
>
> I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there
> and I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast  wrote:
>
> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that
> it still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might
> be if you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
>
> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this
> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false
> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right
> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying
> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So,
> [3] would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation
> were to be added here.
>
> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in
> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can
> see why Andrew was upset about this.
>
> -James
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_
> car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.
> 66520/-111.86552
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_
> car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#
> map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_
> car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#
> map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>
> --
> *From:* Stewart C. Russell 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
> *To:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>
> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > … the engine
> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> > these restrictions to be explicit in the data.
>
> but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
> Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
> there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.
>
> I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
> belong in OSM.
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Martijn van Exel]

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast  wrote:
> 
> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
> still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
> you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
> 
> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this 
> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false 
> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right 
> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying 
> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] 
> would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to 
> be added here.
> 
> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in 
> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can 
> see why Andrew was upset about this.
> 
> -James
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
>  
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552>
> [2] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
>  
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431>
> [3] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>  
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457>
> From: Stewart C. Russell 
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>  
> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > … the engine
> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> > these restrictions to be explicit in the data.
> 
> but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
> Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
> there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
> belong in OSM.
> 
>  Stewart
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James Mast]

Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457



From: Stewart C. Russell 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Martijn van Exel]

I have commented on relevant changesets, 
>> though not every one I've come across. To be honest, there are far too many 
>> problematic changesets to start discussions on all of them.
>> 
>> In using some QA tools to fix other problems, I've come across further 
>> instances of what could best be described as "sloppy" edits. For example, 
>> adjustments to road alignments to align them with Bing, but obviously with 
>> no attempt to properly align the imagery first. Bing is off by 15-20 metres 
>> in much of southern Vancouver Island outside of downtown Victoria, and I've 
>> seen some roads being moved that much out of place. Here's an example 
>> changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46740353 
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46740353> (viewed with Achavi: 
>> https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46740353#map=16 
>> <https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46740353#map=16>). I see the 
>> source "Geobase roads" has been listed as being used as part of the edits, 
>> which actually reflects the correct alignment, but this seems to have been 
>> ignored in favour of the poorly-aligned Bing imagery. In addition, I've 
>> found a number of edits by Telenav members creating or moving highways such 
>> that they cross footways without an intersecting node, which indicates that 
>> the JOSM validator isn't being used before uploading the changes.
>> 
>> In my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, the Telenav members don't have 
>> enough experience with the OSM ecosystem, tagging/mapping conventions, or 
>> editing tools to be making such widespread and prolific changes. I would 
>> strongly recommend that these members focus on mapping a local area that 
>> they can visit in person in order to gain experience with all aspects of 
>> actual on-the-ground mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of 
>> the country. Right now it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end 
>> with the hope that they'll just figure things out, and we're having to deal 
>> with the mess they're creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just 
>> aren't qualified to be making the nationwide changes they are currently. I 
>> also strongly recommend that detailed proposals are brought to this 
>> community's attention before widespread tagging changes are made, such as 
>> the creation of tens of thousands of restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It 
>> would be good to confirm that the team is going to be making useful and 
>> correct changes before actually going ahead, just in case there's a better 
>> way of tagging/mapping things that the team wasn't aware of.
>> 
>> As for the right-turn restrictions that I brought up earlier, I've posed the 
>> question of the legality of these right turns to a couple of sources (one 
>> that's pretty official) and am just waiting on a response. I hope to have 
>> one soon. This will only apply to BC, but it might help indicate whether the 
>> laws need to be investigated for other provinces as well.
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> From: m...@rtijn.org <mailto:m...@rtijn.org>
>> To: "talk-ca" mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>>
>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:08:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>> 
>> Hi all, 
>> 
>> Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. 
>> 
>> First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us 
>> and for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local mappers, 
>> and follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated. There is 
>> a person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe something 
>> untoward, please comment on the changeset so we can learn, discuss or undo 
>> if necessary.
>> 
>> Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will) 
>> explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions.
>> 
>> I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local 
>> mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything 
>> we can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to 
>> discuss with you.
>> 
>> Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members 
>> make in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s 
>> the single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members 
>> of our mapping team

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Kevin Farrugia]

ition, I've found a number of edits by Telenav members creating or
>> moving highways such that they cross footways without an intersecting node,
>> which indicates that the JOSM validator isn't being used before uploading
>> the changes.
>>
>> In my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, the Telenav members don't have
>> enough experience with the OSM ecosystem, tagging/mapping conventions, or
>> editing tools to be making such widespread and prolific changes. I would
>> strongly recommend that these members focus on mapping a local area that
>> they can visit in person in order to gain experience with all aspects of
>> actual on-the-ground mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of
>> the country. Right now it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end
>> with the hope that they'll just figure things out, and we're having to deal
>> with the mess they're creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just
>> aren't qualified to be making the nationwide changes they are currently. I
>> also strongly recommend that detailed proposals are brought to this
>> community's attention before widespread tagging changes are made, such as
>> the creation of tens of thousands of restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It
>> would be good to confirm that the team is going to be making useful and
>> correct changes before actually going ahead, just in case there's a better
>> way of tagging/mapping things that the team wasn't aware of.
>>
>> As for the right-turn restrictions that I brought up earlier, I've posed
>> the question of the legality of these right turns to a couple of sources
>> (one that's pretty official) and am just waiting on a response. I hope to
>> have one soon. This will only apply to BC, but it might help indicate
>> whether the laws need to be investigated for other provinces as well.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> --
>> *From: *m...@rtijn.org
>> *To: *"talk-ca" 
>> *Sent: *Monday, March 27, 2017 9:08:26 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughtful commentary.
>>
>> First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us
>> and for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local
>> mappers, and follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated.
>> There is a person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe
>> something untoward, please comment on the changeset so we can learn,
>> discuss or undo if necessary.
>>
>> Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will)
>> explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions.
>>
>> I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local
>> mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything
>> we can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to
>> discuss with you.
>>
>> Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members
>> make in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s
>> the single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members
>> of our mapping team are always identifiable by their usernames ending in
>> _telenav.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> > On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Stewart C. Russell 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Andrew:
>> >
>> >> … I had already removed some of the
>> >> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in
>> >
>> > Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
>> > one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
>> > send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
>> > route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
>> > algorithms?
>> >
>> >> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
>> >> mapping.
>> >
>> > Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
>> > changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.
>> >
>> > I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
>> > mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...
>> >
>> > Stewart
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-ca mailing list
>> > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Ian Bruseker]

 tools to be making such widespread and prolific changes. I would 
>>> strongly recommend that these members focus on mapping a local area that 
>>> they can visit in person in order to gain experience with all aspects of 
>>> actual on-the-ground mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of 
>>> the country. Right now it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end 
>>> with the hope that they'll just figure things out, and we're having to deal 
>>> with the mess they're creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just 
>>> aren't qualified to be making the nationwide changes they are currently. I 
>>> also strongly recommend that detailed proposals are brought to this 
>>> community's attention before widespread tagging changes are made, such as 
>>> the creation of tens of thousands of restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It 
>>> would be good to confirm that the team is going to be making useful and 
>>> correct changes before actually going ahead, just in case there's a better 
>>> way of tagging/mapping things that the team wasn't aware of.
>>> 
>>> As for the right-turn restrictions that I brought up earlier, I've posed 
>>> the question of the legality of these right turns to a couple of sources 
>>> (one that's pretty official) and am just waiting on a response. I hope to 
>>> have one soon. This will only apply to BC, but it might help indicate 
>>> whether the laws need to be investigated for other provinces as well.
>>> 
>>> Andrew
>>> 
>>> From: m...@rtijn.org
>>> To: "talk-ca" 
>>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:08:26 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>> 
>>> Hi all, 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. 
>>> 
>>> First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us 
>>> and for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local 
>>> mappers, and follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated. 
>>> There is a person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe 
>>> something untoward, please comment on the changeset so we can learn, 
>>> discuss or undo if necessary.
>>> 
>>> Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will) 
>>> explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions.
>>> 
>>> I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local 
>>> mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything 
>>> we can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to 
>>> discuss with you.
>>> 
>>> Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members 
>>> make in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s 
>>> the single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members 
>>> of our mapping team are always identifiable by their usernames ending in 
>>> _telenav.
>>> 
>>> Martijn
>>> 
>>> > On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Hi Andrew:
>>> > 
>>> >> … I had already removed some of the
>>> >> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in
>>> > 
>>> > Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
>>> > one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
>>> > send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
>>> > route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
>>> > algorithms?
>>> > 
>>> >> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
>>> >> mapping.
>>> > 
>>> > Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
>>> > changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.
>>> > 
>>> > I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
>>> > mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...
>>> > 
>>> > Stewart
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > ___
>>> > Talk-ca mailing list
>>> > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
> 
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Kevin Farrugia]

lated)
> reasons for this as I pointed out before [1] and in my research I have
> found many of these in the U.S. as well, but until that is cleared up we
> will not add any more. This includes the left turn restrictions Pierre
> mentioned. To Pierre's comments, I don't think that there's really an
> easier way to map this, turn restrictions have been discussed in the
> community at length and other solutions not based on relations just don't
> scale well to complex situations.
>
> The Bing imagery alignment issue is one that we have not given proper
> attention and I will impress upon the team that they should pay really
> close attention to this and be even more restrained in modifying local
> mappers' work. I seem to remember there is a site / place that lists offset
> issues with Bing imagery by region? Is there a good source to look at for
> this?
>
> I'm thinking it would be good to hold an online town hall where some of
> our team members and myself can answer any questions and discuss the issues
> raised? If you're interested in this let me know off-list and we can set up
> a time.
>
> Thanks again for your feedback and willingness to work on this with me and
> the team. We really do want to improve the map for everyone and we will be
> taking this as an opportunity to do significantly better.
>
> Martijn
>
> [1] Look for example at this situation where there is no turn restriction
> on an intersection with a _link road and OSRM does not route over the _link
> road. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_
> car&route=40.66610%2C-111.86760%3B40.66386%2C-111.86464#
> map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552>
>  It
> is these kinds of (potentially unsafe) situations that we are really
> looking to prevent, not only for Scout users but for all routing software
> using OSM. (This is in the US not in Canada but the situation could occur
> anywhere.)
>
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Andrew Lester  wrote:
>
> Hi Martijn,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Yes, I have commented on relevant changesets,
> though not every one I've come across. To be honest, there are far too many
> problematic changesets to start discussions on all of them.
>
> In using some QA tools to fix other problems, I've come across further
> instances of what could best be described as "sloppy" edits. For example,
> adjustments to road alignments to align them with Bing, but obviously with
> no attempt to properly align the imagery first. Bing is off by 15-20 metres
> in much of southern Vancouver Island outside of downtown Victoria, and I've
> seen some roads being moved that much out of place. Here's an example
> changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46740353 (viewed with
> Achavi: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46740353#map=16). I see
> the source "Geobase roads" has been listed as being used as part of the
> edits, which actually reflects the correct alignment, but this seems to
> have been ignored in favour of the poorly-aligned Bing imagery. In
> addition, I've found a number of edits by Telenav members creating or
> moving highways such that they cross footways without an intersecting node,
> which indicates that the JOSM validator isn't being used before uploading
> the changes.
>
> In my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, the Telenav members don't have
> enough experience with the OSM ecosystem, tagging/mapping conventions, or
> editing tools to be making such widespread and prolific changes. I would
> strongly recommend that these members focus on mapping a local area that
> they can visit in person in order to gain experience with all aspects of
> actual on-the-ground mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of
> the country. Right now it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end
> with the hope that they'll just figure things out, and we're having to deal
> with the mess they're creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just
> aren't qualified to be making the nationwide changes they are currently. I
> also strongly recommend that detailed proposals are brought to this
> community's attention before widespread tagging changes are made, such as
> the creation of tens of thousands of restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It
> would be good to confirm that the team is going to be making useful and
> correct changes before actually going ahead, just in case there's a better
> way of tagging/mapping things that the team wasn't aware of.
>
> As for the right-turn restriction

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Ian Bruseker]

and be even more restrained in modifying local
> mappers' work. I seem to remember there is a site / place that lists offset
> issues with Bing imagery by region? Is there a good source to look at for
> this?
>
> I'm thinking it would be good to hold an online town hall where some of
> our team members and myself can answer any questions and discuss the issues
> raised? If you're interested in this let me know off-list and we can set up
> a time.
>
> Thanks again for your feedback and willingness to work on this with me and
> the team. We really do want to improve the map for everyone and we will be
> taking this as an opportunity to do significantly better.
>
> Martijn
>
> [1] Look for example at this situation where there is no turn restriction
> on an intersection with a _link road and OSRM does not route over the _link
> road. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.
> 66610%2C-111.86760%3B40.66386%2C-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552>
>  It
> is these kinds of (potentially unsafe) situations that we are really
> looking to prevent, not only for Scout users but for all routing software
> using OSM. (This is in the US not in Canada but the situation could occur
> anywhere.)
>
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Andrew Lester  wrote:
>
> Hi Martijn,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Yes, I have commented on relevant changesets,
> though not every one I've come across. To be honest, there are far too many
> problematic changesets to start discussions on all of them.
>
> In using some QA tools to fix other problems, I've come across further
> instances of what could best be described as "sloppy" edits. For example,
> adjustments to road alignments to align them with Bing, but obviously with
> no attempt to properly align the imagery first. Bing is off by 15-20 metres
> in much of southern Vancouver Island outside of downtown Victoria, and I've
> seen some roads being moved that much out of place. Here's an example
> changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46740353 (viewed with
> Achavi: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46740353#map=16). I see
> the source "Geobase roads" has been listed as being used as part of the
> edits, which actually reflects the correct alignment, but this seems to
> have been ignored in favour of the poorly-aligned Bing imagery. In
> addition, I've found a number of edits by Telenav members creating or
> moving highways such that they cross footways without an intersecting node,
> which indicates that the JOSM validator isn't being used before uploading
> the changes.
>
> In my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, the Telenav members don't have
> enough experience with the OSM ecosystem, tagging/mapping conventions, or
> editing tools to be making such widespread and prolific changes. I would
> strongly recommend that these members focus on mapping a local area that
> they can visit in person in order to gain experience with all aspects of
> actual on-the-ground mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of
> the country. Right now it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end
> with the hope that they'll just figure things out, and we're having to deal
> with the mess they're creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just
> aren't qualified to be making the nationwide changes they are currently. I
> also strongly recommend that detailed proposals are brought to this
> community's attention before widespread tagging changes are made, such as
> the creation of tens of thousands of restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It
> would be good to confirm that the team is going to be making useful and
> correct changes before actually going ahead, just in case there's a better
> way of tagging/mapping things that the team wasn't aware of.
>
> As for the right-turn restrictions that I brought up earlier, I've posed
> the question of the legality of these right turns to a couple of sources
> (one that's pretty official) and am just waiting on a response. I hope to
> have one soon. This will only apply to BC, but it might help indicate
> whether the laws need to be investigated for other provinces as well.
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> *From: *m...@rtijn.org
> *To: *"talk-ca" 
> *Sent: *Monday, March 27, 2017 9:08:26 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful commentary.
>
> First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to 

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Pierre Béland]

Bonjour Martijn
Le problème de navigation que tu mentionnes ne s'explique pas par les données 
OSM. Vous tentatives de régler ces problèmes des logiciels de navigation 
alourdissent inutilement la base OSM. Les cles turn peuvent souvent etre 
utilisées et sont moins complexes que les relations de restriction - voir 
exemples

The navigation problem you present is not due to OSM data. The fixes for 
software navigation problems make the database unecessary more complex, 
especially with restriction relations - See examples.

way=385943816, relation no left turn , junction to a oneway - Why ?
way=385943815, relation no left turn, turn=through key would be simpler

your routing example to turn right, the routing software skips the primary 
link. Why ?
way=172236000, primary link well connected -> routing software problem to fix 
first ?
More routing examples around:
routing software accepts the previous primary link to turn right
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66632%2C-111.86855%3B40.66532%2C-111.86682#map=18/40.66579/-111.86688

routing software accepts to turn left even if a restriction relation on turn 
leftway=385943814, relation 5743391, restriction no left 
turnhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66632%2C-111.86855%3B40.66641%2C-111.86492#map=18/40.66600/-111.86668

In the opposite direction, the software accepts to turn left on the primary 
linkhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66503%2C-111.86237%3B40.66532%2C-111.86682#map=17/40.66552/-111.86460
And worst, the software accepts to make a u-turn on the primary links - 
probably adding a simple key turn=through would fix this.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66503%2C-111.86237%3B40.66608%2C-111.86699#map=18/40.66574/-111.86540
 Pierre 


  De : Martijn van Exel 
 À : Andrew Lester  
Cc : talk-ca 
 Envoyé le : jeudi 30 mars 2017 11h51
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
   
Hi Andrew (and let me reply to Pierre's comments too, sorry Pierre, I am a 
little slow parsing French).
First off thanks for your additional comments, they are really useful. I 
realize that I should have shared more detail about what we are planning to do 
and will do a better job in the future if new projects arise. We are actually 
working on a Github repository (similar to Mapbox's) where we will share more 
details about mapping projects and where everybody will be able to talk to the 
team about what we do. Of course we will continue to post here as well.
We do have a serious onboarding process for new mappers on our team where more 
experienced mappers guide the newcomers and introduce them to the OSM 
ecosystem. So they are not quite thrown in the deep end, but like everybody 
else they go through a learning process where they make simple edits first. We 
don't ever use live OSM data for pilot or test projects.
I don't feel there's a consensus about the turn restrictions in places where 
they are not marked. There are really good (routing / safety related) reasons 
for this as I pointed out before [1] and in my research I have found many of 
these in the U.S. as well, but until that is cleared up we will not add any 
more. This includes the left turn restrictions Pierre mentioned. To Pierre's 
comments, I don't think that there's really an easier way to map this, turn 
restrictions have been discussed in the community at length and other solutions 
not based on relations just don't scale well to complex situations.
The Bing imagery alignment issue is one that we have not given proper attention 
and I will impress upon the team that they should pay really close attention to 
this and be even more restrained in modifying local mappers' work. I seem to 
remember there is a site / place that lists offset issues with Bing imagery by 
region? Is there a good source to look at for this?
I'm thinking it would be good to hold an online town hall where some of our 
team members and myself can answer any questions and discuss the issues raised? 
If you're interested in this let me know off-list and we can set up a time.
Thanks again for your feedback and willingness to work on this with me and the 
team. We really do want to improve the map for everyone and we will be taking 
this as an opportunity to do significantly better.
Martijn
[1] Look for example at this situation where there is no turn restriction on an 
intersection with a _link road and OSRM does not route over the _link road. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610%2C-111.86760%3B40.66386%2C-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
 It is these kinds of (potentially unsafe) situations that we are really 
looking to prevent, not only for Scout users but for all routing software using 
OSM. (This is in the US not in Canada but the situation could oc

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Martijn van Exel]

ith all aspects of actual 
> on-the-ground mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of the 
> country. Right now it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end with 
> the hope that they'll just figure things out, and we're having to deal with 
> the mess they're creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just aren't 
> qualified to be making the nationwide changes they are currently. I also 
> strongly recommend that detailed proposals are brought to this community's 
> attention before widespread tagging changes are made, such as the creation of 
> tens of thousands of restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It would be good to 
> confirm that the team is going to be making useful and correct changes before 
> actually going ahead, just in case there's a better way of tagging/mapping 
> things that the team wasn't aware of.
> 
> As for the right-turn restrictions that I brought up earlier, I've posed the 
> question of the legality of these right turns to a couple of sources (one 
> that's pretty official) and am just waiting on a response. I hope to have one 
> soon. This will only apply to BC, but it might help indicate whether the laws 
> need to be investigated for other provinces as well.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> From: m...@rtijn.org
> To: "talk-ca" 
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:08:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. 
> 
> First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us and 
> for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local mappers, and 
> follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated. There is a 
> person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe something 
> untoward, please comment on the changeset so we can learn, discuss or undo if 
> necessary.
> 
> Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will) 
> explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions.
> 
> I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local 
> mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything 
> we can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to 
> discuss with you.
> 
> Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members make 
> in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s the 
> single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members of our 
> mapping team are always identifiable by their usernames ending in _telenav.
> 
> Martijn
> 
> > On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Andrew:
> > 
> >> … I had already removed some of the
> >> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in
> > 
> > Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
> > one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
> > send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
> > route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
> > algorithms?
> > 
> >> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
> >> mapping.
> > 
> > Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
> > changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.
> > 
> > I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
> > mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...
> > 
> > Stewart
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Andrew Lester]

Hi Martijn, 

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I have commented on relevant changesets, though 
not every one I've come across. To be honest, there are far too many 
problematic changesets to start discussions on all of them. 

In using some QA tools to fix other problems, I've come across further 
instances of what could best be described as "sloppy" edits. For example, 
adjustments to road alignments to align them with Bing, but obviously with no 
attempt to properly align the imagery first. Bing is off by 15-20 metres in 
much of southern Vancouver Island outside of downtown Victoria, and I've seen 
some roads being moved that much out of place. Here's an example changeset: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46740353 (viewed with Achavi: 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46740353#map=16). I see the source 
"Geobase roads" has been listed as being used as part of the edits, which 
actually reflects the correct alignment, but this seems to have been ignored in 
favour of the poorly-aligned Bing imagery. In addition, I've found a number of 
edits by Telenav members creating or moving highways such that they cross 
footways without an intersecting node, which indicates that the JOSM validator 
isn't being used before uploading the changes. 

In my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, the Telenav members don't have enough 
experience with the OSM ecosystem, tagging/mapping conventions, or editing 
tools to be making such widespread and prolific changes. I would strongly 
recommend that these members focus on mapping a local area that they can visit 
in person in order to gain experience with all aspects of actual on-the-ground 
mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of the country. Right now 
it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end with the hope that they'll 
just figure things out, and we're having to deal with the mess they're 
creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just aren't qualified to be making 
the nationwide changes they are currently. I also strongly recommend that 
detailed proposals are brought to this community's attention before widespread 
tagging changes are made, such as the creation of tens of thousands of 
restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It would be good to confirm that the team 
is going to be making useful and correct changes before actually going ahead, 
just in case there's a better way of tagging/mapping things that the team 
wasn't aware of. 

As for the right-turn restrictions that I brought up earlier, I've posed the 
question of the legality of these right turns to a couple of sources (one 
that's pretty official) and am just waiting on a response. I hope to have one 
soon. This will only apply to BC, but it might help indicate whether the laws 
need to be investigated for other provinces as well. 

Andrew 


From: m...@rtijn.org 
To: "talk-ca"  
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:08:26 AM 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 

Hi all, 

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. 

First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us and 
for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local mappers, and 
follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated. There is a 
person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe something untoward, 
please comment on the changeset so we can learn, discuss or undo if necessary. 

Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will) 
explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions. 

I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local 
mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything we 
can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to discuss 
with you. 

Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members make 
in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s the 
single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members of our 
mapping team are always identifiable by their usernames ending in _telenav. 

Martijn 

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote: 
> 
> Hi Andrew: 
> 
>> … I had already removed some of the 
>> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in 
> 
> Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present, 
> one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might 
> send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer 
> route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing 
> algorithms? 
> 
>> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground 
>> mapping. 
> 
> Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the 
> changesets? Tel

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Pierre Béland]

Bonjour Martin,
La requête ci-dessous permet de voir les relations type=restriction pour le sud 
du Québec et l'est de l'Ontario (ie. Ottawa, 
Cornwall).http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nOZ

Pour indiquer les restrictions aux intersections, le nombre de relations 
type=restriction a explosé depuis 2015  407 en janvier 2015  864 en janvier 2016
6,167 en janvier 2017
et  12,178 actuellement (11,106 créés par contributeurs telenav). 

Toronto et sud-ouest de l'Ontario : 7,589 relations 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nPx


Vancouver et région : 9,060
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nPy


Il semble que l'Équipe Telenav a utilisé les régions de Vancouver et Montréal 
comme projets pilotes puisque je vois beaucoup moins de relations pour la 
région de Toronto et sud-ouest de l'Ontario.
Je vois des intersections avec des bretelles pour tourner à droite, où les 
chemins ont été coupés en de multiples segments et des relations ajoutées pour 
les restrictions de tourner. Étant donné que beaucoup de contributeurs ne 
maitrisent pas les relations, il faut se demander s'il n'y a pas des modèles 
plus simples.  Il faut s'attendre à ce que beaucoup de ces relations soient 
effacées.

Même à la sortie des bretelles au intersections, je vois des interdit de 
tourner à gauche.
Exemple d'intersection 
interdiction de tourner à gauche http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25336298
On peut simplement ajouter sur le chemin ? turn=right

interdiction de tourner à droite http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183580135
Y-a-t-il eu des discussions sur d'autres listes sur ce sujet, sur les 
différentes façons d'indiquer les restrictions de tourner? Ne serait-il pas 
possible d'ajouter plutôt sur le chemin des clés turn, turn:forward, 
turn:backward ?
  
Pierre 


  De : "m...@rtijn.org" 
 À : talk-ca  
 Envoyé le : lundi 27 mars 2017 12h09
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
   
Hi all, 

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. 

First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us and 
for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local mappers, and 
follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated. There is a 
person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe something untoward, 
please comment on the changeset so we can learn, discuss or undo if necessary.

Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will) 
explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions.

I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local 
mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything we 
can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to discuss 
with you.

Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members make 
in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s the 
single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members of our 
mapping team are always identifiable by their usernames ending in _telenav.

Martijn

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew:
> 
>> … I had already removed some of the
>> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in
> 
> Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
> one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
> send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
> route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
> algorithms?
> 
>> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
>> mapping.
> 
> Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
> changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.
> 
> I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
> mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


   ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[m]

Hi all, 

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. 

First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us and 
for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local mappers, and 
follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated. There is a 
person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe something untoward, 
please comment on the changeset so we can learn, discuss or undo if necessary.

Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will) 
explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions.

I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local 
mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything we 
can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to discuss 
with you.

Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members make 
in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s the 
single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members of our 
mapping team are always identifiable by their usernames ending in _telenav.

Martijn

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew:
> 
>> … I had already removed some of the
>> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in
> 
> Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
> one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
> send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
> route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
> algorithms?
> 
>> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
>> mapping.
> 
> Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
> changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.
> 
> I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
> mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Andrew:

> … I had already removed some of the
> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in

Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
algorithms?

> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
> mapping.

Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.

I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Julian Loke]

Hi List,

The wiki has guidance for the situation where a restriction applies throughout 
an entire jurisdiction:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction 

"When a particular turn restriction is _the default_ for a given jurisdiction 
_and_ is _not signed don't map them_. It is much better to ensure that routing 
engines embody the regional rule rather than mapping every occurrence as a turn 
restriction..." 

Do you think that the wiki applies to the situation under discussion in BC?

Cheers
Julian Loke

On March 26, 2017 8:40:39 AM PDT, Andrew Lester  wrote:
>Thanks for the input. The Motor Vehicle Act is written in legalese and
>therefore hard to decipher, but I think you've raised enough points
>that I'm going to look into it further. I had already removed some of
>the right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in if I determine
>that such turns are indeed illegal. I don't see people make these turns
>very often. It's usually only if someone has stopped at the red light
>waiting to go through or turn left, but then changes their mind and
>turns right instead. I always had the understanding that it was legal
>to do so, but I may have been led astray. I'll see if I can consult
>someone familiar with BC's driving laws and I'll report back here so
>other mappers will know too. 
>
>There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
>mapping. This is something that always happens occasionally, and I can
>live with the occasional instance, but the volume of mapping being
>undertaken by Telenav means this is now happening too often to be
>acceptable. Their mappers need to be given more guidance about what to
>do and what not to do. 
>
>Andrew 
>
>
>From: "Ian Bruseker"  
>To: "a-lester"  
>Cc: "James" , "talk-ca"
> 
>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:05:53 PM 
>Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 
>
>Andrew, 
>I'm sorry to butt in here, I'm normally just a lurker and occasional
>editor of my local bit of the world in OSM, but your comment on the
>right hand turn restriction "at least in BC" really jumped out at me.
>I've seen a number of times in my driving life someone do exactly what
>you are describing, turning right at the actual intersection of two
>roads, rather than the turning lane that came a little earlier, and
>every time they have had BC plates. I live in Alberta, so I just
>shrugged it off as "they're tourists, they just realized they missed
>their turn, whatever". :-) But based on your comment, maybe this is a
>"BC thing" and you all do it. ;-) 
>
>It's always seemed weird to me to see it (but like I said, "tourists,
>whatever"), and seems like a really unsafe and really should be illegal
>practice. Imagine this scenario: driver A is traveling down Wilfert, as
>from your map, and appears to be headed straight through the
>intersection. Driver B behind them takes the right-turn linking lane to
>get to Island Highway. Driver A suddenly decides they need to go right,
>so they turn at the intersection proper. Driver B, having seen the
>light was green for those going straight on Wilfert, presumes (always a
>bad idea, but hear me out) that no car could possibly be coming across
>their path and drives through the right lane and takes the corner. Then
>BOOM, driver A's car is there out of nowhere because he took the later
>option to turn right. Surely that must be illegal because it is so
>unsafe. Not to mention driver C behind both of them also expects driver
>A to go straight because driver A has already passed the turning lane,
>so doesn't expect drive A to suddenly decelerate for the turn (this is
>how I have come to be close enough to a car to see its BC plates, as I
>slam on the brakes to avoid hitting them). 
>
>So I did a quick google. I am not, really really not, a lawyer, but my
>amateur reading of 151(e), as found here:
>http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section151
>, "when approaching an intersection intending to turn right must drive
>the vehicle in the lane nearest to the right hand side of the roadway",
>my take on the wording "must" drive, and lane "nearest" to the right,
>tells me that the linking lane is the only one that it is legal to make
>a right turn from. Also, section 165(4) (
>http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section165
>) says "If at an intersection there is a traffic control device
>indicating the course to be travelled by vehicles turning at the
>intersection, a driver must turn a vehicle at the intersection in the
>manner directed by t

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Andrew Lester]

Thanks for the input. The Motor Vehicle Act is written in legalese and 
therefore hard to decipher, but I think you've raised enough points that I'm 
going to look into it further. I had already removed some of the right turn 
restrictions, but I can add them back in if I determine that such turns are 
indeed illegal. I don't see people make these turns very often. It's usually 
only if someone has stopped at the red light waiting to go through or turn 
left, but then changes their mind and turns right instead. I always had the 
understanding that it was legal to do so, but I may have been led astray. I'll 
see if I can consult someone familiar with BC's driving laws and I'll report 
back here so other mappers will know too. 

There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground mapping. 
This is something that always happens occasionally, and I can live with the 
occasional instance, but the volume of mapping being undertaken by Telenav 
means this is now happening too often to be acceptable. Their mappers need to 
be given more guidance about what to do and what not to do. 

Andrew 


From: "Ian Bruseker"  
To: "a-lester"  
Cc: "James" , "talk-ca"  
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:05:53 PM 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 

Andrew, 
I'm sorry to butt in here, I'm normally just a lurker and occasional editor of 
my local bit of the world in OSM, but your comment on the right hand turn 
restriction "at least in BC" really jumped out at me. I've seen a number of 
times in my driving life someone do exactly what you are describing, turning 
right at the actual intersection of two roads, rather than the turning lane 
that came a little earlier, and every time they have had BC plates. I live in 
Alberta, so I just shrugged it off as "they're tourists, they just realized 
they missed their turn, whatever". :-) But based on your comment, maybe this is 
a "BC thing" and you all do it. ;-) 

It's always seemed weird to me to see it (but like I said, "tourists, 
whatever"), and seems like a really unsafe and really should be illegal 
practice. Imagine this scenario: driver A is traveling down Wilfert, as from 
your map, and appears to be headed straight through the intersection. Driver B 
behind them takes the right-turn linking lane to get to Island Highway. Driver 
A suddenly decides they need to go right, so they turn at the intersection 
proper. Driver B, having seen the light was green for those going straight on 
Wilfert, presumes (always a bad idea, but hear me out) that no car could 
possibly be coming across their path and drives through the right lane and 
takes the corner. Then BOOM, driver A's car is there out of nowhere because he 
took the later option to turn right. Surely that must be illegal because it is 
so unsafe. Not to mention driver C behind both of them also expects driver A to 
go straight because driver A has already passed the turning lane, so doesn't 
expect drive A to suddenly decelerate for the turn (this is how I have come to 
be close enough to a car to see its BC plates, as I slam on the brakes to avoid 
hitting them). 

So I did a quick google. I am not, really really not, a lawyer, but my amateur 
reading of 151(e), as found here: 
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section151 , 
"when approaching an intersection intending to turn right must drive the 
vehicle in the lane nearest to the right hand side of the roadway", my take on 
the wording "must" drive, and lane "nearest" to the right, tells me that the 
linking lane is the only one that it is legal to make a right turn from. Also, 
section 165(4) ( 
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section165 ) 
says "If at an intersection there is a traffic control device indicating the 
course to be travelled by vehicles turning at the intersection, a driver must 
turn a vehicle at the intersection in the manner directed by the traffic 
control device.", and in the definitions section, it defines a traffic control 
device as "a sign, signal, line, meter, marking, space, barrier or device". 
Based on the satellite imagery of that intersection (never actually been there 
myself), it sure looks like there are "lines" and "spaces" and possibly even a 
concrete island "barrier" (imagery isn't that detailed, but sure looks like it) 
on the road that make it clear in where there is a place to turn right. Also 
again with the word "must" rather than something less imperative like "may" or 
"could". So based on my reading, it's not that the turn is legal unless 
otherwise indicated, as you say, but rather that it is illegal unless otherwise 
indicated to turn at exactly t

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Pierre Béland]

J'ai aussi repéré des problèmes au cours des quelques jours, contacté les 
contributeurs et fait les corrections.
1. MapRoulette - Améliorer navigation routière
Ici le contributeur a conservé les voies de sortie à gauche mais enlevé le 
segment qui croise la route principale. Après contact, il a tout effacé. 
Beaucoup de travail a remettre le tout en place et simplement ajouter :- 
turn:lefthttp://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.37564/-73.36261

2. Ajout de segments motorway_link au centre d'autoroute Contributeur TelenavOn 
a sans doute ici utilisé des données gps collectées lors de travaux routiers -  
véhicules qui sont déviés sur voie opposés et circulent en sens contraire du 
traffic. Le contributeur a tracé les voies et ajouté clé motorway_link.Il reste 
ici un segment qu'il a conservé parce que sans doute visible sur imagerie. J'y 
ai ajouté des barrieres et cle 
access=no.http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/45.45102/-73.41833

Cela montre que nous avons intérêt a utiliser des outils de monitoring tels que 
osmcha.mapbox.com
 
Pierre 


  De : James 
 À : Ian Bruseker  
Cc : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
 Envoyé le : Dimanche 26 mars 2017 6h28
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
   
Yeah, Ian is right if anyone did that in Ontario they'd get pulled over by the 
cops or flipped off by other drivers. Very unsafe practice to do. A turning 
lane/ramp is there for a reason.
Also martjin in Ottawa, especially downtown there are always signs to restrict 
turns between peak hours: 5:30-9:30 and 3:30-5:30 monday to friday. These are 
there for a reason(so people dont use roads to sneak around traffic and butt in 
line) please dont remove these
On Mar 26, 2017 2:05 AM, "Ian Bruseker"  wrote:

Andrew,
I'm sorry to butt in here, I'm normally just a lurker and occasional editor of 
my local bit of the world in OSM, but your comment on the right hand turn 
restriction "at least in BC" really jumped out at me.  I've seen a number of 
times in my driving life someone do exactly what you are describing, turning 
right at the actual intersection of two roads, rather than the turning lane 
that came a little earlier, and every time they have had BC plates. I live in 
Alberta, so I just shrugged it off as "they're tourists, they just realized 
they missed their turn, whatever".  :-)  But based on your comment, maybe this 
is a "BC thing" and you all do it.  ;-)  
It's always seemed weird to me to see it (but like I said, "tourists, 
whatever"), and seems like a really unsafe and really should be illegal 
practice.  Imagine this scenario: driver A is traveling down Wilfert, as from 
your map, and appears to be headed straight through the intersection. Driver B 
behind them takes the right-turn linking lane to get to Island Highway. Driver 
A suddenly decides they need to go right, so they turn at the intersection 
proper.  Driver B, having seen the light was green for those going straight on 
Wilfert, presumes (always a bad idea, but hear me out) that no car could 
possibly be coming across their path and drives through the right lane and 
takes the corner.  Then BOOM, driver A's car is there out of nowhere because he 
took the later option to turn right.  Surely that must be illegal because it is 
so unsafe.  Not to mention driver C behind both of them also expects driver A 
to go straight because driver A has already passed the turning lane, so doesn't 
expect drive A to suddenly decelerate for the turn (this is how I have come to 
be close enough to a car to see its BC plates, as I slam on the brakes to avoid 
hitting them).
So I did a quick google.  I am not, really really not, a lawyer, but my amateur 
reading of 151(e), as found here:  http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/ 
document/id/complete/statreg/ 96318_05#section151 , "when approaching an 
intersection intending to turn right must drive the vehicle in the lane nearest 
to the right hand side of the roadway", my take on the wording "must" drive, 
and lane "nearest" to the right, tells me that the linking lane is the only one 
that it is legal to make a right turn from.  Also, section 165(4) ( 
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/ document/id/complete/statreg/ 96318_05#section165 ) 
says "If at an intersection there is a traffic control device indicating the 
course to be travelled by vehicles turning at the intersection, a driver must 
turn a vehicle at the intersection in the manner directed by the traffic 
control device.", and in the definitions section, it defines a traffic control 
device as "a sign, signal, line, meter, marking, space, barrier or device".  
Based on the satellite imagery of that intersection (never actually been there 
myself), it sure looks like there are "lines" and "spaces" and possibly even a 
concrete island "barrier" (imagery isn't th

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James]

nk that the "correct"
> thing is that you can't actually legally turn at that spot, just as that
> turn restriction edit indicates.  If you got that far, go straight and find
> another way to your destination, or turn right and expect a ticket or an
> accident to happen.  Any lawyers or police officers on this list?  Their
> opinions are worth WAY more than mine.  :-)  Again, I am really really
> sorry to butt in.  I just like "correctness" in the map, as you clearly
> do.  I totally agree with the other half of your email, that having
> on-the-ground work killed by bad imagery traces is terrible.  That's why I
> only edit places where I have actually put my own two feet on the ground.
>  :-)
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 25 March 2017 at 21:52, Andrew Lester  wrote:
>
>> I just discovered that user georges_telenav has been mapping turn
>> restrictions in the Victoria, BC area. While some of them seem valid, there
>> are hundreds of right-turn restrictions that can't possibly be based on
>> either Mapillary or OpenStreetView as stated below, because these
>> restrictions simply don't exist in reality. Here's an example:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7014602
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of Canada, but at least in BC, this type of
>> turn is perfectly legal unless otherwise indicated. Most drivers would use
>> the link road and I'd expect routers should always prefer that, but there's
>> nothing wrong if a driver gets past the link road and then changes their
>> mind and wants to turn right. I can think of a handful of locations around
>> town where there may be a sign explicitly forbidding this or at least
>> implying it (e.g. "only left turn"), but the vast majority of the instances
>> that this user has mapped do not have such signage. I'm in the process of
>> cleaning all these up, but I'm worried there may be thousands more of these
>> all over the place outside my immediate region.
>>
>> However, what I discovered while cleaning these up is even more
>> disturbing. This is a region with significant growth, and there are
>> frequent changes and additions to the road network. So far, I've discovered
>> several cases where a reconfigured intersection or new road I had carefully
>> mapped by GPS has been obliterated and replaced with an old configuration,
>> apparently based on out-of-date aerial imagery. I take pride in mapping
>> these changes as soon as possible after they're completed so end-users have
>> the most reliable data (and I often mention this to people as one of the
>> benefits of using OSM data in applications), so it's disappointing to see a
>> distant armchair mapper destroy this careful on-the-ground work based on
>> faulty assumptions and out-of-date imagery. I've also seen Telenav mappers
>> adding residential roads that are clearly driveways and making edits
>> without properly aligning aerial imagery, so I'm not exactly filled with
>> confidence that they should be making widespread changes like they are.
>>
>> Martijn, I think Telenav needs to stop what they're doing and have a
>> careful discussion with us about their plans and editing procedures before
>> making any more edits. At least in my area, their edits have not only
>> failed to improve the dataset, but in a number of cases has actually
>> degraded it. Something needs to be done about this before things go too
>> far. I already have a lot of cleanup work ahead of me, and I'd like to
>> avoid this happening again in the future (at least by Telenav).
>>
>> Andrew
>> Victoria, BC, Canada
>>
>> ------------------
>> *From: *"James" 
>> *To: *"John Marshall" 
>> *Cc: *"talk-ca" 
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:44:53 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>
>> Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india
>> contractors
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall"  wrote:
>>
>>> Make sense to me. Adding turn restrictions is something I don't want to
>>> add.
>>> Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to
>>> help improve the map.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Martijn van Ex

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Ian Bruseker]

apping turn
> restrictions in the Victoria, BC area. While some of them seem valid, there
> are hundreds of right-turn restrictions that can't possibly be based on
> either Mapillary or OpenStreetView as stated below, because these
> restrictions simply don't exist in reality. Here's an example:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7014602
>
> I don't know about the rest of Canada, but at least in BC, this type of
> turn is perfectly legal unless otherwise indicated. Most drivers would use
> the link road and I'd expect routers should always prefer that, but there's
> nothing wrong if a driver gets past the link road and then changes their
> mind and wants to turn right. I can think of a handful of locations around
> town where there may be a sign explicitly forbidding this or at least
> implying it (e.g. "only left turn"), but the vast majority of the instances
> that this user has mapped do not have such signage. I'm in the process of
> cleaning all these up, but I'm worried there may be thousands more of these
> all over the place outside my immediate region.
>
> However, what I discovered while cleaning these up is even more
> disturbing. This is a region with significant growth, and there are
> frequent changes and additions to the road network. So far, I've discovered
> several cases where a reconfigured intersection or new road I had carefully
> mapped by GPS has been obliterated and replaced with an old configuration,
> apparently based on out-of-date aerial imagery. I take pride in mapping
> these changes as soon as possible after they're completed so end-users have
> the most reliable data (and I often mention this to people as one of the
> benefits of using OSM data in applications), so it's disappointing to see a
> distant armchair mapper destroy this careful on-the-ground work based on
> faulty assumptions and out-of-date imagery. I've also seen Telenav mappers
> adding residential roads that are clearly driveways and making edits
> without properly aligning aerial imagery, so I'm not exactly filled with
> confidence that they should be making widespread changes like they are.
>
> Martijn, I think Telenav needs to stop what they're doing and have a
> careful discussion with us about their plans and editing procedures before
> making any more edits. At least in my area, their edits have not only
> failed to improve the dataset, but in a number of cases has actually
> degraded it. Something needs to be done about this before things go too
> far. I already have a lot of cleanup work ahead of me, and I'd like to
> avoid this happening again in the future (at least by Telenav).
>
> Andrew
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
> --
> *From: *"James" 
> *To: *"John Marshall" 
> *Cc: *"talk-ca" 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:44:53 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>
> Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india
> contractors
>
> On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall"  wrote:
>
>> Make sense to me. Adding turn restrictions is something I don't want to
>> add.
>> Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to
>> help improve the map.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel  wrote:
>>
>>> Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53
>>> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>>> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map
>>> team are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal,
>>> and later on also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using
>>> OpenStreetView and Mapillary as sources. If you have any questions or
>>> concerns, please reach out to me and we will address it right away.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use
>>> the schema described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_
>>> restrictions. We encounter a more complex mapping of conditional turn
>>> restrictions sometimes, where mappers have used day_on / day_off and
>>> hour_on / hour_off. This is uncommon and as far as I know not recommended
>>> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Denis Carriere]

That's unfortunate to hear, I'm not shocked to hear that since we've since
this behavior in Ottawa as well (without investigating too much, I've seen
some questionable road edits from Telenav in the past).

+1 Andrew, thanks for sharing.

I'm sure Telenav as a company means well in their edits and they aren't
purposely trying to vandalise OSM, but might be good to pass down a word to
their OSM editors to be careful when they attempt to delete existing data
(especially if it clearly shows that a local mapper edited the area with
high details).

On Mar 25, 2017 11:53 PM, "Andrew Lester"  wrote:

> I just discovered that user georges_telenav has been mapping turn
> restrictions in the Victoria, BC area. While some of them seem valid, there
> are hundreds of right-turn restrictions that can't possibly be based on
> either Mapillary or OpenStreetView as stated below, because these
> restrictions simply don't exist in reality. Here's an example:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7014602
>
> I don't know about the rest of Canada, but at least in BC, this type of
> turn is perfectly legal unless otherwise indicated. Most drivers would use
> the link road and I'd expect routers should always prefer that, but there's
> nothing wrong if a driver gets past the link road and then changes their
> mind and wants to turn right. I can think of a handful of locations around
> town where there may be a sign explicitly forbidding this or at least
> implying it (e.g. "only left turn"), but the vast majority of the instances
> that this user has mapped do not have such signage. I'm in the process of
> cleaning all these up, but I'm worried there may be thousands more of these
> all over the place outside my immediate region.
>
> However, what I discovered while cleaning these up is even more
> disturbing. This is a region with significant growth, and there are
> frequent changes and additions to the road network. So far, I've discovered
> several cases where a reconfigured intersection or new road I had carefully
> mapped by GPS has been obliterated and replaced with an old configuration,
> apparently based on out-of-date aerial imagery. I take pride in mapping
> these changes as soon as possible after they're completed so end-users have
> the most reliable data (and I often mention this to people as one of the
> benefits of using OSM data in applications), so it's disappointing to see a
> distant armchair mapper destroy this careful on-the-ground work based on
> faulty assumptions and out-of-date imagery. I've also seen Telenav mappers
> adding residential roads that are clearly driveways and making edits
> without properly aligning aerial imagery, so I'm not exactly filled with
> confidence that they should be making widespread changes like they are.
>
> Martijn, I think Telenav needs to stop what they're doing and have a
> careful discussion with us about their plans and editing procedures before
> making any more edits. At least in my area, their edits have not only
> failed to improve the dataset, but in a number of cases has actually
> degraded it. Something needs to be done about this before things go too
> far. I already have a lot of cleanup work ahead of me, and I'd like to
> avoid this happening again in the future (at least by Telenav).
>
> Andrew
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
> --
> *From: *"James" 
> *To: *"John Marshall" 
> *Cc: *"talk-ca" 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:44:53 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>
> Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india
> contractors
>
> On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall"  wrote:
>
>> Make sense to me. Adding turn restrictions is something I don't want to
>> add.
>> Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to
>> help improve the map.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel  wrote:
>>
>>> Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53
>>> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>>> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map
>>> team are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal,
>>> and later on also Vancouv

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Andrew Lester]

I just discovered that user georges_telenav has been mapping turn restrictions 
in the Victoria, BC area. While some of them seem valid, there are hundreds of 
right-turn restrictions that can't possibly be based on either Mapillary or 
OpenStreetView as stated below, because these restrictions simply don't exist 
in reality. Here's an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7014602 

I don't know about the rest of Canada, but at least in BC, this type of turn is 
perfectly legal unless otherwise indicated. Most drivers would use the link 
road and I'd expect routers should always prefer that, but there's nothing 
wrong if a driver gets past the link road and then changes their mind and wants 
to turn right. I can think of a handful of locations around town where there 
may be a sign explicitly forbidding this or at least implying it (e.g. "only 
left turn"), but the vast majority of the instances that this user has mapped 
do not have such signage. I'm in the process of cleaning all these up, but I'm 
worried there may be thousands more of these all over the place outside my 
immediate region. 

However, what I discovered while cleaning these up is even more disturbing. 
This is a region with significant growth, and there are frequent changes and 
additions to the road network. So far, I've discovered several cases where a 
reconfigured intersection or new road I had carefully mapped by GPS has been 
obliterated and replaced with an old configuration, apparently based on 
out-of-date aerial imagery. I take pride in mapping these changes as soon as 
possible after they're completed so end-users have the most reliable data (and 
I often mention this to people as one of the benefits of using OSM data in 
applications), so it's disappointing to see a distant armchair mapper destroy 
this careful on-the-ground work based on faulty assumptions and out-of-date 
imagery. I've also seen Telenav mappers adding residential roads that are 
clearly driveways and making edits without properly aligning aerial imagery, so 
I'm not exactly filled with confidence that they should be making widespread 
changes like they are. 

Martijn, I think Telenav needs to stop what they're doing and have a careful 
discussion with us about their plans and editing procedures before making any 
more edits. At least in my area, their edits have not only failed to improve 
the dataset, but in a number of cases has actually degraded it. Something needs 
to be done about this before things go too far. I already have a lot of cleanup 
work ahead of me, and I'd like to avoid this happening again in the future (at 
least by Telenav). 

Andrew 
Victoria, BC, Canada 


From: "James"  
To: "John Marshall"  
Cc: "talk-ca"  
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:44:53 AM 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 



Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india contractors 

On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall" < rps...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Make sense to me. A dding turn restrictions is something I don't want to add. 
Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to help 
improve the map. 

John 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel < jfd...@hotmail.com > wrote: 

BQ_BEGIN



Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki. 

Daniel 



From: Martijn van Exel [mailto: m...@rtijn.org ] 
Sent: Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53 
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
Subject: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 





Hi all, 





I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map team are 
starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal, and later on 
also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using OpenStreetView and Mapillary 
as sources. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to me and 
we will address it right away. 





For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use the 
schema described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions 
. We encounter a more complex mapping of conditional turn restrictions 
sometimes, where mappers have used day_on / day_off and hour_on / hour_off. 
This is uncommon and as far as I know not recommended for mapping 
time-restricted turn restrictions. If we encounter these, our proposal would be 
to remove these tags and if necessary replace them with the preferred scheme as 
described on the wiki. Opinions? 





Best, 


Martijn 




___ 
Talk-ca mailing list 
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 






___ 
Talk-ca mailing list 
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 


BQ_END


___ 
Talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James]

Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india contractors

On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall"  wrote:

> Make sense to me. Adding turn restrictions is something I don't want to
> add.
>
> Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to
> help improve the map.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel  wrote:
>
>> Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org]
>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53
>> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map
>> team are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal,
>> and later on also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using
>> OpenStreetView and Mapillary as sources. If you have any questions or
>> concerns, please reach out to me and we will address it right away.
>>
>>
>>
>> For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use the
>> schema described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.o
>> rg/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. We encounter a more complex mapping of
>> conditional turn restrictions sometimes, where mappers have used day_on /
>> day_off and hour_on / hour_off. This is uncommon and as far as I know not
>> recommended for mapping time-restricted turn restrictions. If we encounter
>> these, our proposal would be to remove these tags and if necessary replace
>> them with the preferred scheme as described on the wiki. Opinions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[John Marshall]

Make sense to me. Adding turn restrictions is something I don't want to add.

Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to help
improve the map.

John

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel  wrote:

> Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> *From:* Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53
> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map team
> are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal, and
> later on also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using OpenStreetView
> and Mapillary as sources. If you have any questions or concerns, please
> reach out to me and we will address it right away.
>
>
>
> For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use the
> schema described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_
> restrictions. We encounter a more complex mapping of conditional turn
> restrictions sometimes, where mappers have used day_on / day_off and
> hour_on / hour_off. This is uncommon and as far as I know not recommended
> for mapping time-restricted turn restrictions. If we encounter these, our
> proposal would be to remove these tags and if necessary replace them with
> the preferred scheme as described on the wiki. Opinions?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Martijn
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Begin Daniel]

Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki.
Daniel

From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org]
Sent: Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

Hi all,

I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map team are 
starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal, and later on 
also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using OpenStreetView and Mapillary 
as sources. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to me and 
we will address it right away.

For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use the 
schema described in 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. We encounter a 
more complex mapping of conditional turn restrictions sometimes, where mappers 
have used day_on / day_off and hour_on / hour_off. This is uncommon and as far 
as I know not recommended for mapping time-restricted turn restrictions. If we 
encounter these, our proposal would be to remove these tags and if necessary 
replace them with the preferred scheme as described on the wiki. Opinions?

Best,
Martijn

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map team
are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal, and
later on also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using OpenStreetView
and Mapillary as sources. If you have any questions or concerns, please
reach out to me and we will address it right away.

For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use the
schema described in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. We encounter a
more complex mapping of conditional turn restrictions sometimes, where
mappers have used day_on / day_off and hour_on / hour_off. This is uncommon
and as far as I know not recommended for mapping time-restricted turn
restrictions. If we encounter these, our proposal would be to remove these
tags and if necessary replace them with the preferred scheme as described
on the wiki. Opinions?

Best,
Martijn
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca