[Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout
On Jan 29, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>
>> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these
>> should be mini-roundabout
On 2 February 2023 09:34:08 GMT, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct,
>there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are
>adequate for that
>
>The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as
Well, the Highway Code says (Rule 188), "Avoid making U-turns at
mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this."
I assume that "avoid" is not quite as strong as "prohibited", especially as
drivers are then warned to "Beware of others doing thís".
Also, I know of at least one bus route near me
Yes, Phil, I overlooked your last point (and I have UK driving license).
In Italy there are no separate rules or road signs for traversable
roundabouts, hence no interdiction of U-turns. That needs addressing.
Country-specific defaults?
"My" traversable roundabout is in fact often used for
On 2 February 2023 09:59:01 CET, Philip Barnes wrote:
>A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal
>junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.
You mean they don't have a diameter because they are not even close to being
circular?
In
I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct,
there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are
adequate for that
The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as the
traversable roundabout has a circular "belly", providing
A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal
junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.
So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other junctions,
whether they can turn left or right.
In the UK, U turns are prohibited
On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 04:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote:
> If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply
> mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional
> advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs
> somewhere where they can
And, I would add, exceptional transports of up to maybe 100 tons or more may
get one time permissions to use the road, possibly involving removing street
furniture to enable the manoeuvre. Changing the physical dimensions of the
carriageway is a bit more difficult though.
On 2 February 2023
sent from a phone
> On 2 Feb 2023, at 04:34, Matija Nalis
> wrote:
>
> If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it
> as
> `hgv=no`?
because hgv=no means forbidden to hgv (vehicles which may weight more than
2.8t).
There are a lot of different sizes
On Jan 29, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>
>> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these
>> should be mini-roundabouts.
>
> Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last
If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it
as
`hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers
will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can actually
pass.
Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others
The old Australian version of what I think is the same thing were nicknamed
Silent Cops.
Article about them:
https://www.shannons.com.au/club/forum/general/who-remembers-silent-cops/
Thanks
Graeme
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 07:04, Colin Smale wrote:
> The "Priority to the right" rule doesn't
The "Priority to the right" rule doesn't cover everything. Imagine a junction
with two cars coming simultaneously from side roads on opposite sides of
another road at right angles. Both want to leave the junction on the orthogonal
road, in the same direction. One is making a right turn, and the
On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 14:31 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> >
> > When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did
> > think these should be mini-roundabouts.
>
> Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these
> should be mini-roundabouts.
Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there
I was trying to offer a universal model that would accommodate both "true"
roundabouts and mini-roundabouts.
In the UK you are expected to make an effort to drive around the "dustbin lid"
(painted circle) in the middle of the mini-roundabout, but that only makes
sense for smaller vehicles.
On 28 January 2023 23:47:38 GMT, Peter Elderson wrote:
>The mini-roundabout just adds priority on the MR to the general keep left
>rule, that is my understanding.
They are to give equal priority to all roads at a junction, usually where
traffic flow would block traffic from side roads.
The mini-roundabout just adds priority on the MR to the general keep left rule,
that is my understanding.
Peter Elderson
> Op 29 jan. 2023 om 00:37 heeft Florian Lohoff het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> Diameter implies there
On 28 January 2023 23:17:59 GMT, Peter Elderson wrote:
>Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale :
>
>> A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is
>> often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that
>> traffic is intended to avoid
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often
> round, not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads
> where there is nothing to measure the diameter of .
Thats exactly the point. The
Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale :
> A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is
> often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that
> traffic is intended to avoid it and use the outer ring, while keeping it
> perfectly usable by
Generalising for all roundabouts, I propose a model in which there are three
diameters:
D1) outer diameter, where the outer kerb is
D2) "guide" inner diameter, the outer diameter of the inner ring intended to
"discourage" traffic
D3) inner diameter, where the inner kerb or wall is (not
On 27 January 2023 21:29:49 GMT, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
>> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
>> surface
Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round, not
always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there is
nothing to measure the diameter of .
Phil (trigpoint)
On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>Is there an established way to
I think the point was that the units are explicitly tagged in meters,
whereas in other cases (like ele), the unit assumed to be meters and you
can just put a number by itself.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 3:14 PM stevea wrote:
> Using mm (millimeters) as a unit for this makes no sense. Meters are
Using mm (millimeters) as a unit for this makes no sense. Meters are much
better in my opinion. I understand water tubes and pipe threads might be
well-stated in mm (for "household" and "everyday" use, not hydrology engineers
and sewerage architects), but water tubes and pipe threads are not
On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 09:44 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe threads,
> and not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the mini-roundabout.
The Wiki-page for diameter explicitly mentions the use for turning_circle
and
The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe threads,
and not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the mini-roundabout.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023, 09:20 Mark Reidel, wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 00:53 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > What I am after is tagging the
On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 00:53 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> What I am after is tagging the dimension of mini-roundabouts. This seems
> to be useful information for longer vehicles. The specific mini-roundabout
> that triggered the question is this one, and it has a diameter of about
> 12m, and,
Florian,
I saw that discussion on the German list. I don't understand it.
I am familiar with the difference between a roundabout and a
mini-roundabout. The difference is essentially the traversability of the
centre, and the size. In the UK, where the OSM tagging was born, they have
different road
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure
I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12
According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
defined as:
"...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed by
vehicles, and is typically used where there is only limited space available.
Road traffic flows in one direction around a point in the
Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
mini-roundabouts.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
35 matches
Mail list logo
