Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30

[Luke Stewart]

Point is, the restrictions that you added in the case of the motorway
on/offramp was incorrect, it was broken by you at some point. In addition
to being broken, there was also a duplicate no_u_turn that was added by you
(which was in fact valid). So there is no problem in deleting something
invalid as long as you can ascertain what it is meant to be. This can very
easily be achieved by looking at object history for many times where iD has
broken the relation. Do you seriously think that TheSwavu (and many other
people for that matter) have been blinding looking at objects without
imagery, object history, or other sources to confirm? There is no universe
where keeping that invalid relation was a good idea, and it was doing
nothing for routing whatsoever.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30

[Anthony Panozzo]

Bottom line is if someone wants to blindly and randomly click buttons then if 
the user knows the intersection and rules, then its okish maybe, but if the 
user is solely relying on a single node validator and has no knowledge of the 
intersection or rules the user should not be permitted to blindly makes edits 
to it. Especially when the user is deleting other peoples work in the process 
to simply flex is validator tool



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:36 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 11:03:59 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The diagram posted by Dian clearly shows that this type of movement is
permitted, again: https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h. If you disagree I suggest
handing in your license.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:57, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> No it would not because its a one way road lmao
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000
> From: Luke Stewart 
> To: Anthony Panozzo 
> Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
> Message-ID:
>  buu-h9c3zb9bqrktmvhe...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41
> hence making it legal
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> > That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> > *Cc: *Luke Stewart ;
> > talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> >
> >
> > Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the
> > correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of
> > view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road.
> >
> > https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h
> >
> > As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a
> > moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of
> rapid
> > fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.
> >
> > Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is
> > being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers
> that
> > may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> >
> > No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road
> > which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit
> > going the wrong way lmao.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Luke Stewart 
> > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> > *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
> >
> >
> >
> > It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in
> > the Road Rules.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
> >
> > Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that
> > picture is. TheSwavu has allowed