Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[osm.talk-au]

This is nonetheless correct mapping!

 

What you are seeing it the resulting impedance mismatch from using linear ways 
to map what on the ground are actually areas.

 

That sort segment at a sharp angle only exists for connectivity purposes. And 
the data makes perfect sense when seen in the context of all tagging around it.

 

Please look at this:

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/949539833217429524/unknown.png

 

as you can see from the dotted outer lines on that “connectivity” way, it’s 
tagged as placement=transition

 

That tells any data consumer that wants to care about it that the position of 
the way does not actually reflect a fixed relation to the area of the way.

 

>From the available data, a data consumer can derive the information that the 
>actual “per lane” connectivity and lane area follows the line that I drew in 
>red.

 

As I’ve said before. OSM is not a map. It’s a geospatial database. A data 
consumer that wants to draw a map is able to derive the necessary information 
from the totality of geometry and tags used.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 15:04
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding 
intersections

 




 

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 13:53, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

Hello,

Things have escalated somewhat: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118091243

Yeah, we now have the situation where turn left slip lanes have been mapped as 
sudden sharp angles, rather than gradual turns, which just looks wrong!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=118091243#map=20/-38.04993/145.29852

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 13:53, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Things have escalated somewhat:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118091243
>
Yeah, we now have the situation where turn left slip lanes have been mapped
as sudden sharp angles, rather than gradual turns, which just looks wrong!
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=118091243#map=20/-38.04993/145.29852

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Andrew Harvey]

I agree that the ways should only be split for a physical separation, and
turn lanes should use turn:lanes and legality of changing lanes
change:lanes as Thorsten points out.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

Things have escalated somewhat: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118091243


(There has definitely been something lost in translation, as this change 
isn't an example of what I was speaking to the editor about.)


As Kim said, I'm not talking about the marginal cases.

These are situations where an additional highway has been drawn for a 
left hand turn where there is no slip lane; and where right hand turn 
lanes are mapped as an X rather than a box.


I'm not sure if the editor is on this list, but I don't believe further 
engagement will work.


Dian

On 2022-03-05 10:48, Luke Stewart wrote:

Personally, for shallow slip lanes like this, I map with the angle of 
the island and do not make curves where it joins the new road.


On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:


Continuing on with that line of thought & looking at the example 
mentioned in the other thread:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-31.99548/115.99338

How should that left turn from Tonkin Hwy to Hale Rd be mapped?

As a relatively smooth curve the way it is now, or as an abrupt 45° 
angle at the physical traffic island eg ___/_|__ ?


Thanks

Graeme

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:
Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this 
comment:


"only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically 
change lanes."


Physically, or legally?

Looking at the  Princes Hwy/William Rd [1] example, yes, there's only a 
painted line & island that you can physically cross, but that would 
mean doing an illegal lane change.


Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?

Thanks

Graeme

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart 
 wrote:


(forgot to x-post to talk-au)

Hi,

The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if 
there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which 
can be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following 
this rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than 
branching off where the physical separation begins).


Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with 
routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break 
osm, rather to improve software.


In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd [1] intersection, the 
residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, 
with the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and 
change:lanes.


As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional 
consensus would be most convincing.


Cheers,
Luke ___
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

Links:
--
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[osm.talk-au]

***physically***

 

Legal lane change restrictions are tagged with change:lanes

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 08:58
To: Luke Stewart 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding 
intersections

 

Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this comment: 

"only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically change 
lanes."

Physically, or legally?

 

Looking at the   <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history> Princes 
Hwy/William Rd example, yes, there's only a painted line & island that you can 
physically cross, but that would mean doing an illegal lane change.

 

Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > wrote:

(forgot to x-post to talk-au)

Hi,

 

The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if there is 
some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can be completed 
with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this rule (same goes for 
ways that start when lanes start rather than branching off where the physical 
separation begins).

 

Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with 
routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm, 
rather to improve software.

 

In the case of the  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history> 
Princes Hwy/William Rd intersection, the residential road should be drawn 
straight through the intersection, with the right turn lane specified with keys 
such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.

 

As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional consensus 
would be most convincing.

 

Cheers,

Luke

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Luke Stewart]

Personally, for shallow slip lanes like this, I map with the angle of the
island and do not make curves where it joins the new road.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Continuing on with that line of thought & looking at the example mentioned
> in the other thread:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-31.99548/115.99338
>
> How should that left turn from Tonkin Hwy to Hale Rd be mapped?
>
> As a relatively smooth curve the way it is now, or as an abrupt 45° angle
> at the physical traffic island eg ___/_|__ ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this
>> comment:
>>
>> "only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically change 
>> lanes."
>>
>> Physically, or legally?
>>
>> Looking at the  Princes Hwy/William Rd
>>  example, yes,
>> there's only a painted line & island that you can physically cross, but
>> that would mean doing an illegal lane change.
>>
>> Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (forgot to x-post to talk-au)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
>>> there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
>>> be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
>>> rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
>>> off where the physical separation begins).
>>>
>>> Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
>>> routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
>>> rather to improve software.
>>>
>>> In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd
>>>  intersection, the
>>> residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, with
>>> the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.
>>>
>>> As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
>>> consensus would be most convincing.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luke
>>> ___
>>> 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] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Continuing on with that line of thought & looking at the example mentioned
in the other thread:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-31.99548/115.99338

How should that left turn from Tonkin Hwy to Hale Rd be mapped?

As a relatively smooth curve the way it is now, or as an abrupt 45° angle
at the physical traffic island eg ___/_|__ ?

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this
> comment:
>
> "only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically change 
> lanes."
>
> Physically, or legally?
>
> Looking at the  Princes Hwy/William Rd
>  example, yes,
> there's only a painted line & island that you can physically cross, but
> that would mean doing an illegal lane change.
>
> Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> (forgot to x-post to talk-au)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
>> there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
>> be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
>> rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
>> off where the physical separation begins).
>>
>> Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
>> routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
>> rather to improve software.
>>
>> In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd
>>  intersection, the
>> residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, with
>> the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.
>>
>> As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
>> consensus would be most convincing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>> ___
>> 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] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this
comment:

"only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically
change lanes."

Physically, or legally?

Looking at the  Princes Hwy/William Rd
 example, yes, there's
only a painted line & island that you can physically cross, but that would
mean doing an illegal lane change.

Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart 
wrote:

> (forgot to x-post to talk-au)
>
> Hi,
>
> The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
> there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
> be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
> rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
> off where the physical separation begins).
>
> Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
> routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
> rather to improve software.
>
> In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd
>  intersection, the
> residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, with
> the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.
>
> As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
> consensus would be most convincing.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Luke Stewart]

(forgot to x-post to talk-au)

Hi,

The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
off where the physical separation begins).

Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
rather to improve software.

In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd
 intersection, the
residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, with
the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.

As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
consensus would be most convincing.

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