Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Greg Stark wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Steve Hillst...@nexusuk.org wrote: 1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK) 2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*) 3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**) 4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***) 5. It is signposted as such Fwiw even (1) isn't necessarily true. The Magic Roundabout famously has a counter-clockwise loop in the centre. And there are other such roundabouts where the central loop isn't even one-way. The Basildon magic roundabout is a set of small roundabouts linked by dual-carriageway! It is legally bidirectional, except the roundabouts, but if you come watch at rush-hour 95%[1] of motorists sit queue in the conventional direction; whereas I just go the other way round it save 10 minutes of clutch-pumping! Mark [95% of all statistics are made up on the spot..] ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Mark Williams wrote: Jon Burgess wrote: The roundabout I really dislike is at Winnersh Triangle, UK: http://osm.org/go/eusmtxB_j- If you look on some satellite imagery you will see it really does have a dual carriage way going right through the middle of the roundabout. And a very odd-looking bit at 1 O'Clock on the slip road - looks like somebody missed linking the node to the way? Mark Why does it take two people to email about something that takes less time to correct when you're already on the webpage? I know you shouldn't generally fix mistakes where you don't know the roads in question, (eg side roads may be intentionally separated from a main road by just a kerb stone or just painted road markings not marked on the map) but in this instance the road configuration can't possibly have been anything else other then a connected dual carriageway north-south route and slip road. Did anyone notice that the node south of the roundabout where the dual carriageway merges to become a single road wasn't connected properly either? So why not correct it? then maybe routing applications will work properly and the whole map project will be more usable. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Greg Stark wrote: Fwiw even (1) isn't necessarily true. The Magic Roundabout famously has a counter-clockwise loop in the centre. And there are other such roundabouts where the central loop isn't even one-way. I wouldn't really consider the magic roundabout to be a roundabout (although others may disagree I guess... I certainly wouldn't expect a satnav to say take the 4th exit at the roundabout when approaching the magic roundabout :). It is really a collection of interlinked miniroundabouts. I do think (5) is kind of important. Critically there are special laws dictating right-of-way and rules for navigating roundabouts which aren't necessarily the same as for a simple loop of one-way roads. Not really - the right of way laws for a roundabout are the same as any other one way system that consists of a major road with side-roads joining it (i.e. you give way to the traffic already on the major road). I guess things get fuzzier as the roundabouts become smaller and the give way to the right rule starts talking about traffic that is still on the side road to the right instead of actually on the roundabout. I have to say I find it awfully annoying to edit ways in an area where every path is broken up into ten million single segment paths because there are bridges, tunnels, surface changes, hazards, etc. It would be awfully nice to have one reasonably big way and then shorter ways marking the exceptions. IMHO this could be better done with relations and improvements to the editors. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Why do we cut them up for the bus routes? Wouldn't it be easier to build a navagation app at does the calculation using all the stops as waypoints. The resulting calculated route might not actually match the route the bus really takes. You might argue that it doesn't matter so long as the bus goes via all the stops, but IMHO it is wrong since there may be reasons for knowing the route the bus actually takes rather than just what stops it goes via. I am not a bus spotter or a photter but why would I want to know what route the 172 Bus takes? Other than from a route planning PoV so that I don't get stuck behind them all the time. I understand that people would like to put bus routes into OSM but does it have to require the cutting up of roundabouts and junctions? I would not go around cutting stuff up just so I can put in a route of ice cream van. Jack ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Jack Stringer wrote: Why do we cut them up for the bus routes? Wouldn't it be easier to build a navagation app at does the calculation using all the stops as waypoints. The resulting calculated route might not actually match the route the bus really takes. You might argue that it doesn't matter so long as the bus goes via all the stops, but IMHO it is wrong since there may be reasons for knowing the route the bus actually takes rather than just what stops it goes via. I understand that people would like to put bus routes into OSM but does it have to require the cutting up of roundabouts and junctions? I would not go around cutting stuff up just so I can put in a route of ice cream van. OSM's database can't hold all the information there is about everything. Among the many criteria for not including information are whether: - the data is ephemeral - it is better represented elsewhere - it distorts the OSM database Bus routes are on the edge of all of these. Where I live routes are changed frequently (sadly often by being removed). Route and timetable information would ideally presented together (some routes operate only once a week). There is likely to be a big increase in mash-up representations with OSM data as just one of the layers. Public transport information is ripe for innovative interactive presentation along these lines. I would prefer to wait the short time until this happens rather than distorting the OSM data unnecessarily. Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
One of the things I like about German street maps is that they mark trams and buses. Even stops. Even stop names (sometimes). I got a text from my partner asking arrived Wuerzburg; what number bus do I get for Veitshoechheim? and I found out, found the correct stop, and could give precise directions to the house (double brownie points). Courtesy of buses and houses being in OSM. I would say there's an ephemerality threshold that needs to be met, but that is determined by the number of editors willing to add/update the info, not purely the change frequency. Street maps in the UK don't have bus info in them, but that's not going to stop me putting it in for Oxford. Feel free to use the info when you visit. I'm certainly finding that doing relations in Potlatch could be a bit easier, but have tried to make appropriate suggestions to get improvements made. If you can add ways to relations easily, it won't matter so much that they are (have to be) short. Thinking about it, a scroll-lock feature would be good (automatically recentering each time you select something more than x from the centre). Richard On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Chris Morley c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk wrote: Jack Stringer wrote: Why do we cut them up for the bus routes? Wouldn't it be easier to build a navagation app at does the calculation using all the stops as waypoints. The resulting calculated route might not actually match the route the bus really takes. You might argue that it doesn't matter so long as the bus goes via all the stops, but IMHO it is wrong since there may be reasons for knowing the route the bus actually takes rather than just what stops it goes via. I understand that people would like to put bus routes into OSM but does it have to require the cutting up of roundabouts and junctions? I would not go around cutting stuff up just so I can put in a route of ice cream van. OSM's database can't hold all the information there is about everything. Among the many criteria for not including information are whether: - the data is ephemeral - it is better represented elsewhere - it distorts the OSM database Bus routes are on the edge of all of these. Where I live routes are changed frequently (sadly often by being removed). Route and timetable information would ideally presented together (some routes operate only once a week). There is likely to be a big increase in mash-up representations with OSM data as just one of the layers. Public transport information is ripe for innovative interactive presentation along these lines. I would prefer to wait the short time until this happens rather than distorting the OSM data unnecessarily. Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Nicholas Barnes wrote: Should, for example, the component ways making up the roundabout be grouped in their own I'm a roundabout relationship? Do we need to be able to tell which ways are part of a roundabout anyway? I mean, on the ground a roundabout is just a one-way circular road with some other roads coming off it - there isn't really anything special about it that makes it a roundabout. The only use of an explicit I'm a roundabout tag/relation that I can immediately think of is to make driving directions more human-readable (i.e. At roundabout, take the 3rd exit). In this case it may be better for the data user to use some heuristic, much as we do ourselves when we look at a piece of road. e.g. If there is a closed (clockwise in the UK) one-way loop with a diameter of less than X metres then consider it a roundabout when generating human-readable driving directions. Using this kind of heuristic would also have the advantage of setting an application-specific upper bound to the size of a roundabout - when roundabouts get beyond a certain size then it is probably better for sat-navs to go back to the usual take the next left driving directions instead of take the 7th exit. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Steve Hillst...@nexusuk.org wrote: On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Nicholas Barnes wrote: Should, for example, the component ways making up the roundabout be grouped in their own I'm a roundabout relationship? Do we need to be able to tell which ways are part of a roundabout anyway? I mean, on the ground a roundabout is just a one-way circular road with some other roads coming off it - there isn't really anything special about it that makes it a roundabout. The only use of an explicit I'm a roundabout tag/relation that I can immediately think of is to make driving directions more human-readable (i.e. At roundabout, take the 3rd exit). In this case it may be better for the data user to use some heuristic, much as we do ourselves when we look at a piece of road. e.g. If there is a closed (clockwise in the UK) one-way loop with a diameter of less than X metres then consider it a roundabout when generating human-readable driving directions. Using this kind of heuristic would also have the advantage of setting an application-specific upper bound to the size of a roundabout - when roundabouts get beyond a certain size then it is probably better for sat-navs to go back to the usual take the next left driving directions instead of take the 7th exit. I disagree - I've come across town-centre one-way systems that are smaller than some large out-of-town roundabouts. There is a clear distinction between them in the way they are signed - e.g. using a roundabout ahead warning triangle, so we should in fact record which are roundabouts and which are just circular oneway streets, since they are in fact different on the ground. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
I'm just trying to think what makes a roundabout a roundabout instead of just a one-way system. So far I've come up with: 1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK) 2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*) 3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**) 4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***) 5. It is signposted as such Of course, there are sadly lots of exceptions... * Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the middle: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just one road. ** http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.910579lon=-1.400756zoom=18layers=B000FTF (The Charlot Place roundabout in Southampton now has the reasonably tall Jury's Inn hotel in the middle of it - I'm sure people can think of many others) *** Can't think of any oddly shaped roundabouts off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that there are plenty. :) How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Donald Allwright wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! These aren't too dissimilar. Although I'm curious how your example works - it looks like the short cut is only of use for people who have come off the southbound carrigeway of the motorway and want to get back on the southbound carriageway - why wouldn't they just go along the motorway instead of taking the junction? (I presume I'm missing something important about who can use the shortcut lane :) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Steve Hill wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! These aren't too dissimilar. Although I'm curious how your example works - it looks like the short cut is only of use for people who have come off the southbound carrigeway of the motorway and want to get back on the southbound carriageway - why wouldn't they just go along the motorway instead of taking the junction? (I presume I'm missing something important about who can use the shortcut lane :) Ahhh the good old hamburger junction :) These are becoming more common now, and yes, their only purpose is to provide a shortcut, in this case its for traffic heading from the M11 south to the A120 east. There is another example at M40 junction 4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.61226lon=-0.76773zoom=16layers=B000FTF amongst quite a few others around the country. Not all of them are one way, some are two way, such as this one up north http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.47973lon=-2.28295zoom=17layers=B000FTF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
2009/7/23 Donald Allwright donald_allwri...@yahoo.com: I'm just trying to think what makes a roundabout a roundabout instead of just a one-way system. So far I've come up with: 1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK) 2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*) 3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**) 4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***) 5. It is signposted as such Of course, there are sadly lots of exceptions... * Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the middle: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just one road. ** http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.910579lon=-1.400756zoom=18layers=B000FTF (The Charlot Place roundabout in Southampton now has the reasonably tall Jury's Inn hotel in the middle of it - I'm sure people can think of many others) *** Can't think of any oddly shaped roundabouts off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that there are plenty. :) How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! The roundabout I really dislike is at Winnersh Triangle, UK: http://osm.org/go/eusmtxB_j- If you look on some satellite imagery you will see it really does have a dual carriage way going right through the middle of the roundabout. -- Jon ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! These aren't too dissimilar. Although I'm curious how your example works - it looks like the short cut is only of use for people who have come off the southbound carrigeway of the motorway and want to get back on the southbound carriageway - why wouldn't they just go along the motorway instead of taking the junction? (I presume I'm missing something important about who can use the shortcut lane :) You can use it if you come off the southbound carriageway and want to go west (or into the services), or if you approach from the west (or from the services) wanting to go South. In both cases you could also take the outer loop, although I think the signposts discourage it. I think I'm correct in saying that the shortcut was the original part of the roundabout, and the extra extension was built at a later stage to accommodate increased traffic as a result of Stansted airport just to the east. Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
I think that we let taggers decide whether it's a roundabout or not (to me the defining feature is that you perceive it as a single junction, rather than a series of connected junctions in a one-way system, usually because there's nothing in the middle, however there's quite a grey area, and perceptions will vary among users, especially when there are lights). Question really is how do we tag that and does splitting it cause any real problems. I think most purposes are served by putting junction=roundabout on all the ways in the circulating carriageway (including any shortcuts in the middle). That way routers will know that they're sending someone onto a roundabout. And renderers who want to use a roundabout symbol can do a reasonable job without pre-processing for small and medium roundabouts (you just put the symbol on each and every node). I could see it might be helpful to give large roundabouts (maybe 100m diameter) a distinctive junction= tag (or just treat it as a one-way system). But I can't on the face of it see any major need for roundabouts to be single ways, or any pressing need to put the component ways into relations. Unless anyone else can think of one? Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On 22 Jul 2009, at 23:24, Richard Mann wrote: I've not exactly rushing to get to that stage, but I couldn't see any obvious way to edit the ordering of a relation. Could anyone give me any clues? You can change the ordering of the relation using JOSM's relation editor. You may need to update to be able to get it. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Shaun McDonald wrote: Sent: 23 July 2009 1:56 PM To: Richard Mann Cc: talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org; Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies On 22 Jul 2009, at 23:24, Richard Mann wrote: I've not exactly rushing to get to that stage, but I couldn't see any obvious way to edit the ordering of a relation. Could anyone give me any clues? You can change the ordering of the relation using JOSM's relation editor. You may need to update to be able to get it. But we need that tool improved to be able to reorder a route relation consisting of ways and bus_stop nodes. It's very difficult to see what the correct order should be, especially when streets have been chopped up because different routes leave at different junctions. It's an improvement to have ordering and re-ordering capability, but still some way to go to be useful for large relations. Cheers Andy Shaun ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Hill wrote: * Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the middle: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just one road. This one has 2 dual carriageways running through it perpendicular to each other, and a third dual carriageway that ends at the roundabout: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.497691lon=-0.45292zoom=18layers=B000FTF Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpoY7MACgkQz+aYVHdncI1/6gCdHxXtffw7hx0oczaCJSH1AV9N PV4AoKuJbCL+f89fAxjeUyzWbnw//Pzg =SHzZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
From: Robert (Jamie) Munro rjmu...@arjam.net Message-ID: 4a6863b5.2090...@arjam.net This one has 2 dual carriageways running through it perpendicular to each other, and a third dual carriageway that ends at the roundabout: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.497691lon=-0.45292zoom=18layers=B000FTF And, to add to the fun, that isn't quite right on OSM as it stands (unfortunately I'm not in a position to edit right now), as the short bit of road between that roundabout and the one immediately to its south is under motorway restrictions. See http://pathetic.org.uk/current/m4_heathrow_spur/photos/pages/46_JPG.shtml and http://pathetic.org.uk/current/m4_heathrow_spur/photos/pages/03_JPG.shtml. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
One more thing about roundabouts as if it isn't complex enough already: which street/road name do roundabouts get from all the roads entering them? I can never decide so I just don't add a name ( except where it is a major roundabout on a ring road for instance which tends to get and individual name givven to thit) - or do we just put up with all the nags from various services telling us we have a way with no name? Regards Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Nicholas Barnes wrote: Please could somebody give me some ideas about what (if anything) is wrong with this whole roundabout/bus route/highway junction and what should be done to sort it all out. I was doing some bus routes for the first time recently too, and I think there's a fundamental problem here: a roundabout has to be a complete loop, but the bus route may only use part of it. I ended up putting the whole roundabout in the route relation. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
David Earl wrote: I was doing some bus routes for the first time recently too, and I think there's a fundamental problem here: a roundabout has to be a complete loop, but the bus route may only use part of it. I ended up putting the whole roundabout in the route relation. Which, after thinking about it, would make perfect sense - after all, the bus driver could go all the way around the roundabout twice before taking the correct road off and although it may have been a little silly, nobody could say that he went the wrong route! Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Shaun McDonald wrote: I have seen many roundabouts split up so that the bridges can be added properly, so started doing it myself some time ago. Which begs the question what is the point of tagging as way as a bridge? Other than what the rendered map looks like (and I keep hearing that we're not meant to be tagging for the renderer), I can't see the point of messing up a perfectly formed roundabout with all parts set with the correct 'layer' tag when all you end up with is a roundabout which renders as badly as this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.46457lon=-1.70987zoom=15layers=0B00FFF Surely it's perfectly obvious that if a road goes underneath another road, there must be a bridge involved. Sorry for the rant, but I've just fixed two roundabouts where the layers were all set incorrectly at about the time somebody added those bus routes. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Barnesn...@thebarnesfamily.eu wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: I have seen many roundabouts split up so that the bridges can be added properly, so started doing it myself some time ago. Which begs the question what is the point of tagging as way as a bridge? Because the bridge exists, and we want to map it. Other than what the rendered map looks like (and I keep hearing that we're not meant to be tagging for the renderer) You can tag anything you like so long as it's factually correct. I can't see the point of messing up It's not messing it up, it's adding more factually correct information which is widely accepted in OpenStreetMap as being useful. a perfectly formed roundabout with all parts set with the correct 'layer' tag when all you end up with is a roundabout which renders as badly as this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.46457lon=-1.70987zoom=15layers=0B00FFF If you look at every other layer it renders fine, so it's hardly a fundamental problem with the data. Surely it's perfectly obvious that if a road goes underneath another road, there must be a bridge involved. It took me literally milliseconds to think of a case where that's not true. Sorry for the rant, but I've just fixed two roundabouts where the layers were all set incorrectly at about the time somebody added those bus routes. Such are the joys of a wiki map. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Nicholas Barnes wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: I have seen many roundabouts split up so that the bridges can be added properly, so started doing it myself some time ago. Which begs the question what is the point of tagging as way as a bridge? Other than what the rendered map looks like (and I keep hearing that we're not meant to be tagging for the renderer), I can't see the point of messing up a perfectly formed roundabout with all parts set with the correct 'layer' tag when all you end up with is a roundabout which renders as badly as this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.46457lon=-1.70987zoom=15layers=0B00FFF Surely it's perfectly obvious that if a road goes underneath another road, there must be a bridge involved. Sorry for the rant, but I've just fixed two roundabouts where the layers were all set incorrectly at about the time somebody added those bus routes. Nick. It may be obvious sometimes, but even in your example, it's not obvious whether the two slip roads to the E and SE of that roundaboud go over or under the A446? Bridges are too important a landmark to omit. Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Nicholas Barnes wrote: Please could somebody give me some ideas about what (if anything) is wrong with this whole roundabout/bus route/highway junction and what should be done to sort it all out. One major omission is 'oneway=yes' on many of the dual roads,the slip roads, and the service roads leading on and off the roundabouts, otherwise the routing won't work. Do make sure the direction for each way is correct when adding that tag. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Barnesn...@thebarnesfamily.eu wrote: Surely it's perfectly obvious that if a road goes underneath another road, there must be a bridge involved. Or a tunnel. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Brian Prangle wrote: Most public transport route maps do show the whole roundabout as part of the route - perhaps we should follow their example? If the return trip takes the same roads, eventually the bus will have navigated the whole roundabout, and then the whole roundabout *is* part of the route. -- Lennard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:33 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Lennard wrote: Brian Prangle wrote: Most public transport route maps do show the whole roundabout as part of the route - perhaps we should follow their example? If the return trip takes the same roads, eventually the bus will have navigated the whole roundabout, and then the whole roundabout *is* part of the route. As usual, I have a counter example - the bus station leads off the roundabout and comes on to it further on, so there is one section of roundabout that none of the 40 buses an hour that use it travel over! OTOH, some routes go round one-and-a-half times, so should I include that section twice in the relation? (No, I'm not being serious). Yes. Relations are ordered, so you can (and should) put in the exact sequence of ways that the route passes over. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
I've not exactly rushing to get to that stage, but I couldn't see any obvious way to edit the ordering of a relation. Could anyone give me any clues? Richard On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. Relations are ordered, so you can (and should) put in the exact sequence of ways that the route passes over. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
