Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[m]

Hi all, 

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> 
> On 2017-04-25 12:43 AM, Andrew Lester wrote:
>> Okay Telenav, you win. …
> 
> Yes, that must be frustrating. Would hate to lose you as a contributor.

Alienating and driving away local contributors is the last thing we would want 
to accomplish!

Let’s try and move past hurtful statements about us and our intent, and towards 
some hopefully constructive ways to fix mistakes we have made and prevent 
future ones from happening.

Let me suggest this: I will take the concerns raised here to our team and get 
back to the list before the end of the week with proposed next steps to fix 
where possible. We will use Github tickets to track this. This is something new 
we are starting to make our work and processes more visible and transparent: 
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues 
. You can follow 
along and chime in there as well. 

My invitation to set up a town hall meeting with you and some of our team 
members also still stands.

Andrew — I added the issues you mentioned in your email as tickets. Some of 
them need more information to be actionable though, I hope you are able to 
provide some.

Stewart:

> 
> They're also adding futile turn restrictions at the join of one-way
> on/off ramps, like this:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7096540

That changeset was closed more than a month ago, we stopped adding these 
‘implicit’ restrictions after the issue was first raised and it had become 
clear that there needed to be more discussion around them.
> 
> (in a huge changeset, with the super-helpful comment “small updates”, no
> less)

You’re right, that’s not very helpful at all — we actually recently tightened 
up our changeset commit best practices to avoid things like huge changesets and 
meaningless comments. We published this on Github as well (feedback welcome): 
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/wiki/Changeset-Best-Practices
 


I hope this helps us move forward.

Martijn___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-25 12:43 AM, Andrew Lester wrote:
> Okay Telenav, you win. …

Yes, that must be frustrating. Would hate to lose you as a contributor.

They're also adding futile turn restrictions at the join of one-way
on/off ramps, like this:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7096540

(in a huge changeset, with the super-helpful comment “small updates”, no
less)

While you might be able to haul a U-ey round these, pretty sure the road
regulations disallow it, along with basic common sense and steering
geometry.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James]

I've caught them also adding roads in Ottawa that dont exist, despite
having OpenStreetCam imagery available

Like here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.42203/-75.63455
That added the branch that connects lemieux street to overpass/labelle
street despite this being paved over 2+ years ago...

On Apr 25, 2017 12:45 AM, "Andrew Lester"  wrote:

Okay Telenav, you win.

I've come across many mapping issues over the last few weeks, and nearly
all of them have been created by Telenav mappers. These include malformed
restrictions that prevent legal routing (these are in addition to the
subjective turn restrictions discussed previously), adding names to
driveways in strata developments (that I had previously removed), replacing
my on-the-ground mapping with their own based solely on out-of-date imagery
or the often-questionable Geobase, wildly incorrect highway
classifications, and much more. Since these mappers seem to be intent on
destroying the map (their actions can't be classified as anything but
destructive), I'm throwing in the towel. If Telenav wishes to pay their
employees to degrade the quality of the map, there isn't much I can do as a
lone hobbyist in my spare time. At the rate I'm seeing things going, it
won't be long until the OSM database has been degraded to the state that
Google Maps is in these days since they started letting any yahoo edit
their map.

Going forward, I'm going to stick to mapping trails (which I sincerely hope
Telenav doesn't branch out to), things like parks, and adding new roads. If
a Telenav mapper later comes along and removes that new/realigned road
because it doesn't look like that on Bing, then I guess they'd win again.
I'm no longer going to clean up after Telenav, because they don't appear to
want a quality map. I'll just have to accept that the routing on my
OSM-based Garmin maps will gradually degrade and will likely contain
routing issues, so I'll be careful about selecting my own route.

I used to promote OSM as a great map that had benefits over others like
Google, but I'm going to stop doing so because I no longer believe that.
Congratulations, Telenav. You've beaten a heavy mapper into submission.
You're free to degrade the map in the Victoria area as much as you want,
and I won't fight back anymore.

...at least the Telenav employees still get paid, so someone benefits from
all of this in some twisted way...

Andrew Lester
Victoria, BC, Canada

--
*From: *m...@rtijn.org
*To: *"James Mast" 
*Cc: *"OSM US" , "talk-ca" <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
*Sent: *Wednesday, April 5, 2017 6:00:35 AM

*Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James — Thanks. This means that at the very least we need to check on a
jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis if these turns are allowed or not.

Just as a data point, Google maps won’t let you make that turn either [1].
That’s not to argue that I am right in any way, just to show that false
assumptions regarding turns are made outside of OSM.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.586229,-80.
0446722/40.586796,-80.0438587/@40.5879274,-80.0482634,17.
23z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0


On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:31 PM, James Mast  wrote:

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the
right turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane
being closed when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were
using it as a temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the
bridge they were replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that
was on the other side of the intersection.

-James
--
*From:* Martijn van Exel 
*Sent:* Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
*To:* James Mast
*Cc:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of
your example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see
there is that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?)
closed to traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the
intersection? Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case,
based on the info I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no
restriction would be necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because
of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that
'when there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team
is not adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I
am looking for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also)
as to traffic regulations that would make adding these restrictions not
only valid but also a boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want
us to add these if there is no confusion regarding correctness and there is