Isaac Wingfield wrote: >Three questions about one thing: > >In my neighborhood, I came across an "intersection" where the two >streets don't actually join, though the map said they did. I separated >them and added a "bollard" tag, because that's what is there; cyclists >or pedestrians can go through just fine. > >Problem is, at anything less than the highest zoom, the two still >appear to join. See here: > >http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.249885&lon=-121.910917&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF > >How do I fix it so the streets stay separate at zoom levels a driver >would likely use? > >Second, the bollard shows up in the middle of the wrong street; it >should be "between" Coralee and Little Branham. How do I arrange that? > >And third, is it appropriate to add a nearly zero-length "cycle path" >to show that bikes and pedestrians can go through, or is there a >better way? > >Isaac
First, yes, I would add a short section of highway connecting Little Brenham Lane to Coralee Drive, as you have, but place the bollard at the other end of that short section, so that it is clear that the restriction applies to Coralee Drive, and not, as you currently have it, preventing traffic flow along Brenham Lane. If there actually is no defineable cycle path, such that just removing the bollard would allow autos proceeding onto or off of Little Brenham Lane with physical difference in from any other local intersection, then I would not differentiate the way markings with a cycle path, just use residential. If there is, in fact, a very short section of the way which is distinguishable from the street, then yes, add an appropriate length section of bike path. There is really no need to do that unless the difference is actually there, though. Because of trees and shadows, I can't tell from the Yahoo imagery which is the case. The bollard rendering (dot in the street) should visually indicate that there is no passage to a motorist viewing the map, and the fact that it is on the node on Coralee Drive will (or at least should) prevent routers from routing automobiles through that intersection. The fact that the streets look like they are connected at some magnifications (or even all magnifications if the pavement actually does connect) really shouldn't be considered an issue, in my opinion. The little dot tells the story. As always others may have different opinions. What is particularly interesting to me is that while Mapnik renders the bollard correctly, Osmarenderer appears to place the bollard at entirely the wrong intersection. At Rafton Drive and Coralee Drive rather than at Little Brenham Lane. If it is as it appears to me, that should be worth a bug report. Placing the bollard in the middle of the intersection may have confused Osmarenderer, but it shouldn't have. By the way JOSM, at least, will be much happier if you change all those street abbreviations (Ln, Dr, etc.) to full words. And delete the tiger:review=no entry on those ways that you have either verified or corrected, to indicate that you have reviewed the TIGER data. That will help prevent your corrections from being replaced with new TIGER data when newer TIGER data is imported. You wouldn't want to have all that hard work disappear. -- Randy _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
