On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM, James Ewen <[email protected]> wrote: > > What about this? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.4360945224762&lon=-113.488726615906&zoom=15 [ ... ] > Some days you just want to take the traffic planners out and shoot them!
Now, James, you have been involved with OSM long enough to know that the project does not advocate shooting traffic planners. ;-) And new mappers should note that established don't always have The Answer and will consult or revise. If someone had mapped that intersection as a simple divided-undivided it would be correct. Adding the four flares would also be correct. We're building an abstraction of the real world, not a 1:1 exact replica; where would we put it? And different mappers will disagree on exactly where my abstract model is too much or yours is not enough. In either case using turn restrictions makes the abstract junction more accurate to routing programs. You appear to be using way-placement to imply turn restrictions. I have done that before, but only where physical barriers exist, as in: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=43.638215&mlon=-79.45347&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=Craigavon+Dr,+Strathcona+County,+Division+No.+11,+Alberta&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FfngMAMdo7A_-Q&split=0&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=16.71875,56.536561&hq=&hnear=Craigavon+Dr,+Strathcona+County,+Division+No.+11,+Alberta&ll=43.638296,-79.45334&spn=0.002838,0.005466&t=h&z=18 I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that my choice of abstraction allows me to be lazier for the Cragavon intersection. ;-) And that I should use turn restrictions for interesting junctions. ;-) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
