Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
> I just had a quick look and noticed that too. In the small area linked, > I counted 9 roundabouts. Turning them into a circle, has given them 18 > nodes each. Given that each round-about has 4 entry/exit points, this > means for a diamond shape, youre using no extra nodes, for an octagon > youre using 36 extra nodes and the current method (18 nodes) has created > 126 extra nodes in this area. > > While I agree that its useful to represent curves and bends properly in > the traffic flow, this seems a bit excessive. Youre going from having 9 > roundabouts with 36 nodes, to having 9 roundabouts using 162 nodes, for > no reason other than so it renders a little bit nicer? Not me. I had only put in 8 nodes at each. Only add additional at larger roundabouts or where I need to have increased information. > One question I do have though, is why put the roundabouts in, and not > split up the entry/exit ways? From looking at the nearmap imagery, the > entry/exit lanes are divided at each round-about. There also appears to > be a lot of footpaths in the area if youve got plenty of time to kill :) I would not bother with these small islands bigger islands yes. This is also in line with the osm wiki where don't split roads at small islands meant as pedestrian refuges at intersections. Gives someone else something to do. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 10:47 +1000, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > 1) They're clearly mini roundabouts. I go straight over them on my bike. > > They are concrete circles from Nearmap as far as I can tell. > > > 3) Why an octagon shape? Ugh. At least use the "tidy" function in JOSM > > or Potlatch to make them circles. > > An octagon is the smallest number of nodes to accurately describe a circle. > And they have been tidied using JOSM's circle function. I just had a quick look and noticed that too. In the small area linked, I counted 9 roundabouts. Turning them into a circle, has given them 18 nodes each. Given that each round-about has 4 entry/exit points, this means for a diamond shape, youre using no extra nodes, for an octagon youre using 36 extra nodes and the current method (18 nodes) has created 126 extra nodes in this area. While I agree that its useful to represent curves and bends properly in the traffic flow, this seems a bit excessive. Youre going from having 9 roundabouts with 36 nodes, to having 9 roundabouts using 162 nodes, for no reason other than so it renders a little bit nicer? One question I do have though, is why put the roundabouts in, and not split up the entry/exit ways? From looking at the nearmap imagery, the entry/exit lanes are divided at each round-about. There also appears to be a lot of footpaths in the area if youve got plenty of time to kill :) David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On 30/04/10 13:55, Steve Bennett wrote: > Not sure what the technical definition of "island" or "concrete > circle" is. These particular examples are ever so slightly raised > (perhaps 15cm) and have a slight kerb. Then they're roundabouts, as defined in the Aust Road Rules. > If we want to define a mini_roundabout as one that is strictly only painted > (not sure I've > seen such a thing here), then fair enough - but let's put in in the > wiki. "Roundabouts should be drawn out in full" is not sufficient. Technically, if they're just painted they're not roundabouts in Aust. By all means, tag them as mini-roundabouts if you will. But be aware that the specific road rules for roundabouts don't apply. > Not sure that makes sense, but I accept the explanation that you don't > need many nodes for most sensible zoom levels. It's only really in > something like Potlatch at high zoom levels that it's noticeable. > (Although aesthetically it still seems right to use more nodes, but > that's probably just a question of taste.) I usually tag small, 4-entry roundabouts with just those 4 nodes. Bigger ones normally get 8 nodes from me, and probably more still if the connecting roads are flared (so that entry and exit points are duly separated). Curve smoothness is a compromise. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: >> 1) They're clearly mini roundabouts. I go straight over them on my bike. > > They are concrete circles from Nearmap as far as I can tell. Andrew wrote: >However, once you add an >island and kerbing, they become a full roundabout, and need (IMHO) to be >fully drawn and tagged appropriately. That's how I've been doing them >anyway. Not sure what the technical definition of "island" or "concrete circle" is. These particular examples are ever so slightly raised (perhaps 15cm) and have a slight kerb. If we want to define a mini_roundabout as one that is strictly only painted (not sure I've seen such a thing here), then fair enough - but let's put in in the wiki. "Roundabouts should be drawn out in full" is not sufficient. > >> 2) The roads you've mapped out don't even follow the aerial photos - >> they cut across people's front lawns. > > Must have missed resizing these lot done now and I did not map any of the > other roads they were alread there. Ok, fair enough. >> 3) Why an octagon shape? Ugh. At least use the "tidy" function in JOSM >> or Potlatch to make them circles. > > An octagon is the smallest number of nodes to accurately describe a circle. > And they have been tidied using JOSM's circle function. Not sure that makes sense, but I accept the explanation that you don't need many nodes for most sensible zoom levels. It's only really in something like Potlatch at high zoom levels that it's noticeable. (Although aesthetically it still seems right to use more nodes, but that's probably just a question of taste.) > Having just spent 3 months on the road collecting over 9000km's of gps traces > which have already been incorporated into osm, due to problems with our > vehcile we've got 6 months of while we wait for repairs so how I spend that > time is totally up to me. Indeed. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On 30 April 2010 10:47, Ross Scanlon wrote: > An octagon is the smallest number of nodes to accurately describe a circle. > And they have been tidied using JOSM's circle function. According to the wiki a square is "good enough" although if a roundabout only has 3 exits I guess a triangle would be good enough. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout#Examples ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Abuse
On 30 April 2010 06:55, Liz wrote: > Don't change individual streets, there are ways to revert the entire changeset > so that everything they have changed is gone. It depends how much bogus information was entered, was it one or 2 streets, or was it half a country... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:49:11 +0800, Liz wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> I don't know about everyone else, but I see the tagging there as a
>> pretty normal shortcut. I've done the same thing myself. New housing
>> developments often contain dozens of roundabouts. Better to tag them
>> as mini_roundabout than not to tag them at all. And since, in potlatch
>> at least, you can tag a mini_roundabout with one click and one
>> keypress ('r') — compared to probably at least a dozen clicks for a
>> full roundabout — it seems worth it.
>>
>
> Steve, you draw out one roundabout.
> You copy and paste that roundabout all through the housing estate.
> Now you draw the lines which connect them to make the roads.
>
> Easier.
Better is drawing a diamond shape in Potlatch, then pressing 't' to tidy
it. Presto! A nice tidy circle! Put the diamond points on the roundabout
itself and the circle will overlay the road correctly. More complex
roundabouts with dual carriageways entering are no problem, either.
My opinion, in this seemingly endless debate, is that those roundabouts
that are merely painted circles are mini_roundabouts, regardless of if
they exist in Australian Road standards or not. However, once you add an
island and kerbing, they become a full roundabout, and need (IMHO) to be
fully drawn and tagged appropriately. That's how I've been doing them
anyway.
$0.02
--
Andrew Gregory
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
From: Steve Bennett > 1) They're clearly mini roundabouts. I go straight over them on my bike. You're not supposed to go over a roundabout, unless your vehicle's lack of turning ability necessitates it! :-) > 2) The roads you've mapped out don't even follow the aerial photos - they cut > across people's front lawns. The roads in that area look OK to me with reference to NearMap photos. > 3) Why an octagon shape? Ugh. At least use the "tidy" function in JOSM or > Potlatch to make them circles. I mostly use octagons to map roundabouts in my local area too. The OSM Editing Standards and Conventions document says "you should add enough points to make each curve look like a curve". On the other hand, the documentation for junction=roundabout suggests "A standard size roundabout with up to four exits can be drawn simply using four nodes in a diamond shape." As the editing conventions say, curves made of lines "always look like a series of lines when zoomed in past a certain point". The degree to which this is an issue depends on the zoom level. I particularly dislike the way that a diamond shape renders on (the current maximum) zoom 18 - it looks nothing like a circle. However an octagon looks quite close to a circle. If we had renderers that went to zoom 19 then I would perhaps go beyond the octagon and use a dodecagon (12 sides). Regards Simon ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
> 1) They're clearly mini roundabouts. I go straight over them on my bike. They are concrete circles from Nearmap as far as I can tell. > 2) The roads you've mapped out don't even follow the aerial photos - > they cut across people's front lawns. Must have missed resizing these lot done now and I did not map any of the other roads they were alread there. > 3) Why an octagon shape? Ugh. At least use the "tidy" function in JOSM > or Potlatch to make them circles. An octagon is the smallest number of nodes to accurately describe a circle. And they have been tidied using JOSM's circle function. > My mind is blown that you would spend hours of your time doing this. > There are thousands of more productive things you could be doing. I > was about to start converting a couple into mini_roundabouts when I > suddenly twigged why they were there. Having just spent 3 months on the road collecting over 9000km's of gps traces which have already been incorporated into osm, due to problems with our vehcile we've got 6 months of while we wait for repairs so how I spend that time is totally up to me. > Sorry to rant, but...why...why...? Cause I can. > Steve > Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Abuse
Done and Done, Response from osm "I've put a block on him with a message he will need to read before he can edit again. I suggest we wait to see if that prompts him to get in touch before we embark on a revert." Cheers Ross On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:55:16 +1000 Liz wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, John Smith wrote: > > So the question is, do you think you can take care of the problem > > yourself, do you need some help or do you want someone else to deal > > with it completely? > > > Don't change individual streets, there are ways to revert the entire > changeset > so that everything they have changed is gone. > > So ONE person message the offenders Voon-LI? John? and wait 24 hours. > Then if no result (as expected) we list the changesets and ask someone to > revert the lot. > > Suggest > Hi friends > > Your changes to the OpenStreetMap have been noticed. OpenStreetmap is a > serious project, not a place to immortalise your friends. Please join us to > add real data to the map - put your favourite fast food joints on, improve > the > map and not deface it. > OpenStreetMap has tools to remove all your work in one move, and this weekend > we intend to remove all of your changes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: > Hi All, > > I know I'm probably preaching to the converted but... > > I've been having a look at tagwatch and have noticed a massive increase in > the number of mini roundabouts, in the past couple of months. > > Mind you I've replaced about 800 of them over the last week or too. I'm guessing this is your work: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.907329&lon=145.107541&zoom=19 Why? Why would you do this? 1) They're clearly mini roundabouts. I go straight over them on my bike. 2) The roads you've mapped out don't even follow the aerial photos - they cut across people's front lawns. 3) Why an octagon shape? Ugh. At least use the "tidy" function in JOSM or Potlatch to make them circles. My mind is blown that you would spend hours of your time doing this. There are thousands of more productive things you could be doing. I was about to start converting a couple into mini_roundabouts when I suddenly twigged why they were there. Sorry to rant, but...why...why...? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Liz wrote: > Steve, you draw out one roundabout. > You copy and paste that roundabout all through the housing estate. > Now you draw the lines which connect them to make the roads. Not a bad idea, if they're all the same size and orientation. Potlatch doesn't (I don't think) have copy/paste though. (My point remains though: it's a waste of time to criticise imperfect tagging methods that represent a trade-off between time and perfection. We're all entitled to choose our preferred balance between depth and breadth.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Abuse
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, John Smith wrote: > So the question is, do you think you can take care of the problem > yourself, do you need some help or do you want someone else to deal > with it completely? > Don't change individual streets, there are ways to revert the entire changeset so that everything they have changed is gone. So ONE person message the offenders Voon-LI? John? and wait 24 hours. Then if no result (as expected) we list the changesets and ask someone to revert the lot. Suggest Hi friends Your changes to the OpenStreetMap have been noticed. OpenStreetmap is a serious project, not a place to immortalise your friends. Please join us to add real data to the map - put your favourite fast food joints on, improve the map and not deface it. OpenStreetMap has tools to remove all your work in one move, and this weekend we intend to remove all of your changes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I don't know about everyone else, but I see the tagging there as a
> pretty normal shortcut. I've done the same thing myself. New housing
> developments often contain dozens of roundabouts. Better to tag them
> as mini_roundabout than not to tag them at all. And since, in potlatch
> at least, you can tag a mini_roundabout with one click and one
> keypress ('r') — compared to probably at least a dozen clicks for a
> full roundabout — it seems worth it.
>
Steve, you draw out one roundabout.
You copy and paste that roundabout all through the housing estate.
Now you draw the lines which connect them to make the roads.
Easier.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> http://www.4x4falcon.com/screenshots/josm_not_mini_roundabout_source_nearmap.jpg
> http://www.4x4falcon.com/screenshots/josm_not_mini_roundabout_source_nearmap_2.jpg
>
> Both were tagged as source=nearmap by the same user.
I don't know about everyone else, but I see the tagging there as a
pretty normal shortcut. I've done the same thing myself. New housing
developments often contain dozens of roundabouts. Better to tag them
as mini_roundabout than not to tag them at all. And since, in potlatch
at least, you can tag a mini_roundabout with one click and one
keypress ('r') — compared to probably at least a dozen clicks for a
full roundabout — it seems worth it.
> You'll also find it's "Offence Provison" under the road rules to drive across
> the center unless it is impractical to do so in the vehicle you are driving,
> eg semi-trailer.
Interesting. I wasn't actually thinking of driving across the centre,
but still news to me.
Steve
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Nearmap imagery north of Melbourne
More imagery north of Melbourne is coming online. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/56117394 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On 30/04/10 01:34, John Smith wrote: > They usually paint the outer edge solid white, and the offense is when > you cross an unbroken solid white line, or so I've been told in > respect to NSW road rules, although the states have supposed to > harmonise their road rules by now. Crossing unbroken lines aside, it's an offence to drive on the central part of a roundabout if your vehicle's size lets you avoid doing that: "A driver driving in a roundabout must drive: ... to the left of the central traffic island in the roundabout" (ARR rule 115). John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On 30 April 2010 01:13, Ross Scanlon wrote: > While I tend to agree with this it's not what was my original issue. And I agree with you that 99.9% of roundabouts tagged as mini are wrong, it's the 0.1% that's in question. > You'll also find it's "Offence Provison" under the road rules to drive across > the center unless it is impractical to do so in the vehicle you are driving, > eg semi-trailer. They usually paint the outer edge solid white, and the offense is when you cross an unbroken solid white line, or so I've been told in respect to NSW road rules, although the states have supposed to harmonise their road rules by now. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
> FWIW, here's how I see it > > 1) A mini-roundabout is a round marking, whether painted or slightly > raised, in the middle of an intersection that can legitimately be > driven over in a normal car. While I tend to agree with this it's not what was my original issue. The following two links are screenshots to two that I've since replaced with drawn out roundabouts. (each are about 340kb). http://www.4x4falcon.com/screenshots/josm_not_mini_roundabout_source_nearmap.jpg http://www.4x4falcon.com/screenshots/josm_not_mini_roundabout_source_nearmap_2.jpg Both were tagged as source=nearmap by the same user. These are quite obviously not mini_roundabouts as above or as per the wiki. You'll also find it's "Offence Provison" under the road rules to drive across the center unless it is impractical to do so in the vehicle you are driving, eg semi-trailer. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Abuse
On 29 April 2010 23:29, Voon-Li Chung wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm new on the mailing list, so it would be appreciated if you could > forgive some of the newbie / naive responses. Is anyone else slowly > getting angrier about the vandalism :( ? The problem isn't the vandalism, it's bound to happen, it happens all the time on wikipedia, why would it not happen on 'the wikipedia of maps'... > Looking at their changes, I don't think they've made any major > contribution to the database. Before most others will help you directly, especially on the main talk/dev lists, they will want to know if you contacted the author of the changes to find out more or less if it was an accident and if they also think their changes will be reverted. Although it's obvious in this case the user probably won't help or it might even be counter productive giving the person a buzz that they're getting to you. You can send a request to the talk list for people that do bulk reverts to revert the change set, although if the user keeps making bogus edits the problem will definitely need escalating to some kind of automation to remove. So the question is, do you think you can take care of the problem yourself, do you need some help or do you want someone else to deal with it completely? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On 29 April 2010 23:56, Ross Scanlon wrote: > It will render correctly on mapnik if you set up mapnik to do so. No, the smaller the roundabout the more non-roundabout it will look, so it won't render correctly. > What your proposing is tagging for the renderer, what I'm saying is collect > the data then let the renderer or router work it out. I'm actually making the claim you are trying to get us to tag for garmins because they don't render the information the same as other rendering software. > Your missing my point here, in that all the data needs to be collected so > that the different renderers and routers can then do as they like with the > data. If you want garmin or mapnik to render the data as just a cross or t > intersection even though its actually a roundabout then you can do so or vv. I understand the point perfectly, however you are pushing one thing because you have a problem with the output, doesn't mean it's being tagged incorrectly. > We are collecting that data, not just making the map, so lets make it as > accurate as possible. Accurate is subjective, I think there are some mini roundabouts and tagging them as mini roundabouts is accurate to me, but it's not to you because it doesn't work properly on your device. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
> > If your sitting there tracing details from nearmap why not get it right > > first off there's no time limit, this is not a race, the data is more > > important than mappers convienience. > That is only one opinion, in my opinion this is tagging things wrong > because it doesn't render properly on mapnik, but that is just my > opinion I'm not trying to pass it off as group think because someone > wrote it up on the wiki... It will render correctly on mapnik if you set up mapnik to do so. What your proposing is tagging for the renderer, what I'm saying is collect the data then let the renderer or router work it out. Your missing my point here, in that all the data needs to be collected so that the different renderers and routers can then do as they like with the data. If you want garmin or mapnik to render the data as just a cross or t intersection even though its actually a roundabout then you can do so or vv. We are collecting that data, not just making the map, so lets make it as accurate as possible. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Abuse
Hi everyone, I'm new on the mailing list, so it would be appreciated if you could forgive some of the newbie / naive responses. Is anyone else slowly getting angrier about the vandalism :( ? They've also added: "Jon Cryer Drive" (56235587) "Blake Johnson Street" "Simon Barber Drive" (29452691) "Highlands Road" (46594174) and they've rerouted Bolton Avenue through the golf course at Burswood Resort to make way for their "Simon Barber Drive" (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-31.956927&lon=115.898245&zoom=18). They've renamed the main road in Kalgoorlie to "Hannan Street (Fake Great Eastern Highway)". I'd say they lived in the Parkerville / Stoneville area and were FIFO workers in Kalgoorlie. "Simon Barber Drive" seems to be a fictional highway that follows the path of the river and connects Burswood Resort, via some of their other creations, to the Parkerville / Stoneville area. Given it's just one "contributor", should we ask a sys/data admin to revert all his changes and ask the relevant user questions later? The vandalism intrudes into the CBD area of the map - I would argue that it is falling into the "might bring the project into disrepute" elements of the "important to respond immediately and revert first and ask questions to the contributor in parallel" guidelines in the OSM wiki. Looking at their changes, I don't think they've made any major contribution to the database. -- Voon-Li Chung chun...@gmail.com.au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On 29 April 2010 22:59, Ross Scanlon wrote: > Read the wiki. > > "Roundabouts should be drawn in full." Which is merely the opinion(s) of one or more people that wrote it, there seems to be 3 opinions on tiny roundabouts, they should be mapped in full, mini roundabout tagging is sufficient or they just don't care. > Agree but it does not convey the same meaning as we've seen the routers > (Garmin at least) don't recognise the mini_roundabouts). That doesn't mean the mini tag is wrong, just that some people are pushing to have things render correctly on Garmin's. > If your sitting there tracing details from nearmap why not get it right first > off there's no time limit, this is not a race, the data is more important > than mappers convienience. That is only one opinion, in my opinion this is tagging things wrong because it doesn't render properly on mapnik, but that is just my opinion I'm not trying to pass it off as group think because someone wrote it up on the wiki... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
> Could I suggest that if any decisions are taken on stuff like this, > the decision should be documented on the wiki. Otherwise it doesn't > really exist, and will just be rehashed indefinitely on the mailing > list. Read the wiki. "Roundabouts should be drawn in full." It was put this way to be polite. > 2) Better to mislabel a real roundabout as a mini-roundabout than > leave it marked as a normal intersection. (It's much, much quicker, > and conveys almost the same information.) Agree but it does not convey the same meaning as we've seen the routers (Garmin at least) don't recognise the mini_roundabouts). If your sitting there tracing details from nearmap why not get it right first off there's no time limit, this is not a race, the data is more important than mappers convienience. > 3) There are much bigger fish to fry. Sure are, I'll have a barra :) Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
John Smith wrote: This roundabout seems decorative to me http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-35.921013,145.647941&z=21&t=k&nmd=20100122 It's obviously designed to co-ordinate with the herringbone pattern in the adjacent parking lot. :-) Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
not really... it forces people to swing wide when making a right hand turn... assuming this is a good thing to do... jim On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM, John Smith wrote: > This roundabout seems decorative to me > > http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-35.921013,145.647941&z=21&t=k&nmd=20100122 > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- _ Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft 'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity.' - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: > This is definitely not a mini_roundabout even if we had such in Australia > which has previously been agreed we don't have them. Could I suggest that if any decisions are taken on stuff like this, the decision should be documented on the wiki. Otherwise it doesn't really exist, and will just be rehashed indefinitely on the mailing list. FWIW, here's how I see it 1) A mini-roundabout is a round marking, whether painted or slightly raised, in the middle of an intersection that can legitimately be driven over in a normal car. 2) Better to mislabel a real roundabout as a mini-roundabout than leave it marked as a normal intersection. (It's much, much quicker, and conveys almost the same information.) 3) There are much bigger fish to fry. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
This roundabout seems decorative to me http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-35.921013,145.647941&z=21&t=k&nmd=20100122 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
