I asked local community and as Tom suggested we only divide lanes when there is a physical obstacle. So it shouldn't be changed.
The intersection from second problem was fixed as mentioned earlier by Mateusz Konieczny and I am waiting for update of maps to check it. Next time I will post 2 seperate topics, because I am getting lost in current one :) niedziela, 18 kwietnia 2021 o 16:03:58 UTC+2 Xavier napisał(a): > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:39:47AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > >>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:59:40AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>> >There is also second problem later on this road. > >>> > > >>> >[image: 2.jpg] > >>> >I think that this lane has problem with tags: > >>> >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/292304503 > >>> >becuase the left turn ends and the lane should be over. > >>> > >>> There is a tag problem with that segment. > >>> > >>> It says this for number of lanes: > >>> > >>> lanes=3 > >>> lanes:backward=1 > >>> lanes:forward=2 > >>> > >>> So the tags say two forward lanes. > >>> > >>> But the turn tagging says: > >>> > >>> turn:lanes:forward=through|through|right > >>> > >>> So the "forward" turn lanes tag states there should be three forward > >>> lanes. > >>> > >>> Note this statement in the "turn:lanes" wiki page: > >>> > >>> If you use the ":lanes" suffix, the number of values specified > >>> separated by vertical lines (|) must match the number of lanes > >>> according to their direction. > > >First issue: > >I forgot to add mappilary imagery or my own, but: > > > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.2427793&lng=19.0246699&z=17&pKey=d46NqdKKK3B9JckAOPAM4g&focus=photo&x=0.4892810659969685&y=0.5921736710813945&zoom=0 > >this intersection for me is also strange, because "go through" should be > >"go right", but we have such sings and we can do nothing with them. > > That sign is likely why the tags say "through" instead of "right". OSM > attempts to accurately reflect what the local on the ground signage > states, even if what the signage states is odd. > > This would be a good example of why conulting with local mappers will > be best. > > >Aerial imagery without cars: > >[image: Francuska_Ceglana.png] > >So you suggest to split the Francuska street at the intersection and have > 2 > >seperate lanes at the end of Francuska. > >Makes sense, but I am not an expert. I will contact the Polish community > on > >Osm Forum. > > The sign shows three total lanes, one reverse, two forward. So at the > point on the ground where there is room for three lanes, it could > either be: > > 1) a single OSM way, labeled as three lanes, with turn tagging to match > the signage. > > or > > 2) split into two ways, one with two lanes (one each direction) and a > single way for the "through" part of the sign (for the segment where > there are really three lanes). > > But in any case, checking with the local mapping community is best > before doing anything. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OsmAnd" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/3e994797-7cea-4ed7-860a-9b5bf1ff5f98n%40googlegroups.com.
