Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

2017-04-05 Thread m 
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...@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 added value 
> to adding them.
> 
> I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
> I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.
> 
> Martijn
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast > > wrote:
>> 
>> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
>> still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
>> you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
>> 
>> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this 
>> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false 
>> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right 
>> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying 
>> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] 
>> would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to 
>> be added here.
>> 
>> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in 
>> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can 
>> see why Andrew was upset about this.
>> 
>> -James
>> 
>> [1] 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
>>  
>> 
>> [2] 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
>>  
>> 
>> [3] 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>>  
>> 
>> From: Stewart C. Russell >
>> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
>> To: talk...@openstreetmap.org 
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>  
>> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> > … the engine
>> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
>> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
>> > these restrictions to be explicit in the

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

2017-04-03 Thread James Mast 
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...@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 added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast 
> wrote:


Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457



From: Stewart C. Russell >
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart


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

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

2017-04-03 Thread Shawn K. Quinn 
On 04/03/2017 12:18 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> 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 added value to adding them.
> 
> I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations
> there and I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Around Houston, there were a couple of places where it was specifically
signed that one could not make a turn (usually a right turn) at the
intersection if there was a turning bay with a triangular/porkchop
island. However at others there is no explicit signage and in fact
there's one intersection where it's specifically signed that one can
turn out of the second lane at the intersection where it was signed
before "no right turn around island".

To more directly answer the question, I don't think there is a law in
Texas saying that one must use the turning lane if it's present. It's
often ill-advised to make a right turn at the intersection itself in
those cases, though.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

2017-04-03 Thread Martijn van Exel 
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 added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast  wrote:
> 
> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
> still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
> you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
> 
> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this 
> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false 
> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right 
> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying 
> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] 
> would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to 
> be added here.
> 
> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in 
> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can 
> see why Andrew was upset about this.
> 
> -James
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
>  
> 
> [2] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
>  
> 
> [3] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>  
> 
> From: Stewart C. Russell 
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
> To: talk...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>  
> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > … the engine
> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> > these restrictions to be explicit in the data.
> 
> but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
> Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
> there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
> belong in OSM.
> 
>  Stewart
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us