Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 00:05, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> I haven't see a response to my question of when to use multiple lanes or
> separate ways. In this intersection there are small plastic obstructions
> between lanes. I can see arguments for modelling them either way. For a
> picture of these see
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794368611389=145.24075834056=17=1146194895843889=photo
> <
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794368611389=145.24075834056=17=1146194895843889=photo
> >
>

I would think that if there are physical obstructions between lanes, so you
can't move between them, then they should be drawn as separate ways.

 Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Andrew,

A couple of days ago I updated this intersection to remove a couple of 
short ways, merge some ways, and update the turn restrictions. There 
should now be only one ways to negotiate the intersection from any entry 
to exit. This may explain why online directions are working, while 
OsmAnd may be using older data.


I haven't see a response to my question of when to use multiple lanes or 
separate ways. In this intersection there are small plastic obstructions 
between lanes. I can see arguments for modelling them either way. For a 
picture of these see 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794368611389=145.24075834056=17=1146194895843889=photo 



Regards,
Kim

On 21/9/21 6:54 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 18/9/21 9:04 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:


Andrew, are you familiar with this intersection from travelling 
through it?




No, and it may be some time before I could visit in person :-(

I came across this one because it had a broken turn restriction. Based 
on what had been mapped I assumed that someone was trying to give lane 
guidance. This is just a standard roundabout except for the fact that 
you need to be in the left lane to turn left on some of the arms.


OSRM and Graphhopper will give you correct directions (ie take the nth 
exit on the roundabout) but OSMAnd fails to notice you are going to 
drive through a roundabout. The first two routers are getting the 
correct answer by accident because the fake slip roads have been 
tagged as _link, as a result the router prefer to follow the main road 
into the roundabout.


It had occurred to me that the same outcome (lane guidance) could now 
be given using turn and change tagging.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Andrew Davidson]

On 21/9/21 6:54 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:
guidance. This is just a standard roundabout except for the fact that 
you need to be in the left lane to turn left on some of the arms.


OK, brain not working. I mean you need to be in the right lane to go 
straight through.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Andrew Davidson]

On 18/9/21 9:04 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:


Andrew, are you familiar with this intersection from travelling through it?



No, and it may be some time before I could visit in person :-(

I came across this one because it had a broken turn restriction. Based 
on what had been mapped I assumed that someone was trying to give lane 
guidance. This is just a standard roundabout except for the fact that 
you need to be in the left lane to turn left on some of the arms.


OSRM and Graphhopper will give you correct directions (ie take the nth 
exit on the roundabout) but OSMAnd fails to notice you are going to 
drive through a roundabout. The first two routers are getting the 
correct answer by accident because the fake slip roads have been tagged 
as _link, as a result the router prefer to follow the main road into the 
roundabout.


It had occurred to me that the same outcome (lane guidance) could now be 
given using turn and change tagging.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

When should separate ways be drawn, and when should lane tags be used on 
a single way? In this intersection the asphalt is continuous between 
parallel lanes, but they are separated by long rubber strips with a 
cross section about 20cm wide and 10cm high - not something a router 
should expect people to drive over. Should these be separate ways (as 
this intersection has been drawn)? Or should lane tagging be used 
instead? See the yellow hump between lanes in the bottom of the photo at 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794368611389=145.24075834056=17=1146194895843889=photo=0.5099759524408607=0.6241051450966552=0 



As for changes, I'd suggest removing 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703254763 
 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703254777 
. Some turn restrictions 
could also be added, but many restrictions are not required as the ways 
are all one way.


Andrew, are you familiar with this intersection from travelling through it?

Regards,
Kim

On 18/9/21 7:23 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:

I came across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.79462/145.24176

which is no doubt causing routers all sorts of headaches.

I'm thinking of combining the roundabout part of the intersection into 
a single roundabout and adding some lane tagging.


Does anyone have an objection to this proposal?


Thanks.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

>From a quick look at aerial imagery I think it's pretty much accurate. I don't 
>see all that mich that could be improved, though perhaps removing parallel 
>ways in some spots.

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

From: Andrew Davidson 
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 7:23:53 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

I came across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.79462/145.24176

which is no doubt causing routers all sorts of headaches.

I'm thinking of combining the roundabout part of the intersection into a
single roundabout and adding some lane tagging.

Does anyone have an objection to this proposal?


Thanks.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Andrew Davidson]

I came across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.79462/145.24176

which is no doubt causing routers all sorts of headaches.

I'm thinking of combining the roundabout part of the intersection into a 
single roundabout and adding some lane tagging.


Does anyone have an objection to this proposal?


Thanks.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au