Spot on. Although the routing engine data could impose a turn restriction here based upon geometry as part of their data pipeline.
I wonder if it is legal to turn there and, if not, does that form part of the ground truth IRT OSM, regardless of whether there is a sign present. On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:53, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you miss the on-ramp and are waiting for the traffic signals, a > router can recalculate the route in the meantime and still try to let > you turn left at the traffic signals. > > m. > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 1:47 PM Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > I agree that Markus' solution is more elegant (and I was more looking to > > the offramp itself). I would normally also map it like that but I also > > don't go out of my way to correct situations like that. > > The way it is mapped now is more organic, more as you would actually > > drive. As such I don't see it as wrong. > > > > I would not add a turn restriction. For routers it is useless because > > you never get that route anyway. > > > > Regards, > > Maarten > > > > On 2019-01-11 13:23, Jem wrote: > > >> I'd map that place like that: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ID_Screen_Shot_from_-32.0914374,_116.0129206.png > > > > > > I agree. And a supplementary question... would you also add a > > > no-left-turn restriction from https://osm.org/way/581948344 at > > > https://osm.org/node/5680879176? I would, and have done in the past. > > > But to be honest, I'm not sure if a turn like that (having already > > > passed the slip lane designated for the turn) is legal or not. > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 20:47, Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:40, Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> See below two cases where we would simplify the geometry: > > >>>> > > >>>> * -32.0914374, 116.0129206 > > >>> > > >>> Is seen no big problem in how the roads are layed out there. > > >> Coming from > > >>> the motorway there is a clear divider where the offramp connects > > >> to the > > >>> Albany Highway. > > >> > > >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596272469> and > > >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596272466> form a > > >> double-rectangle, > > >> but there isn't such a divider. I'd map that place like that: > > >> > > >> > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ID_Screen_Shot_from_-32.0914374,_116.0129206.png > > >> > > >>> I have more problems with the tags of the on- and offramp. They > > >> are > > >>> mapped as motorway when they should be mapped as motorway_link. > > >> The two > > >>> bridges in the on- and offramp are mapped as motorway_link. > > >> > > >> +1. I'd also delete the descriptions like Tonkin Highway Southbound > > >> Ramp off to Albany Highway in the name tag unless the ramps are > > >> signed > > >> like that on site. > > >> > > >>>> * -35.3409195, 149.1616891 > > >>> > > >>> Ways 77001149 and 77000891 should IMHO not be mapped like that but > > >>> mapped with turn:lanes. > > >> > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> > > >> Markus > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> talk mailing list > > >> talk@openstreetmap.org > > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ > > > talk mailing list > > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
