> > 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.
Very clear. Thanks. > 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. Well, that's because I accidentally put the bollard at that place initially, and corrected the error later. You just checked things after Mapnik had updated, but before Osmarenderer had. > 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. Good to know; again, thanks. Isaac _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
