I checked the updated version of map and currently it doesn't lost in this intersection: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.24502/19.02526
So the topic can be closed niedziela, 2 maja 2021 o 16:03:21 UTC+2 [email protected] napisał(a): > 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/6b02e744-d635-46d5-8d4f-a2b5cb9b5dc1n%40googlegroups.com.
