Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. You are allowed to cross to turn, such as to make a uturn. To indicate do no cross you need a yellow median island. Not in France Right. I believe most if not all of Europe is different from the USA in this respect. However my point about U-turns around such islands is that there usually just isn't the road width to do a U-turn, Surely that depends on the size (and, more specifically, turning radius) of your vehicle. Whilst not prohibited, an accident whilst doing this is likely to get you the standard catch all of driving without due care and attention and no doubt generate more 'Satnav causes accident' type headlines. Don't tag for the headlines? I.E. don't deliberately tag incorrectly to avoid headlines? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Thats what I mean by scary, I expect to have to read up on traffic regulations when I drive in a different country, but for all practical purposes the rules are exactly the same anywhere in the UK. Allowing towns of cities to make their own laws sounds like anarchy. The courts, at least in this case, seem to agree with you: http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/15538564/making-u-turns-in-moorhead To stand up to a challenge in court, I would hope state law would need to explicitly reference the rule. But IANAL and have no idea if this is the case. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:36 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: However, whether or not U-turns are allowed at all varies from place to place. Some towns categorically forbid U-turns; some allow them only where signs state they are allowed; some allow them except where signs forbid them; and some towns allow them in general as long as you aren't doing them in a reckless manner. That is scary, is there signage? or is everyone expected to just know? Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 09:04 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:36 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: However, whether or not U-turns are allowed at all varies from place to place. Some towns categorically forbid U-turns; some allow them only where signs state they are allowed; some allow them except where signs forbid them; and some towns allow them in general as long as you aren't doing them in a reckless manner. That is scary, is there signage? or is everyone expected to just know? Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Well, Franklin, Tennessee recently changed a city ordinance from categorically banning u-turns to allowing them if they can be done safely, without endangering other traffic, and if there isn't a sign at that particular point forbidding u-turns. Prior to the law change, I think it was something that drivers were expected to know. Since I don't visit Franklin very often, however, I can't say for sure. http://m.wkrn.com/default.aspx?pid=2705wnfeedurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wkrn.com%2fstory%2f17964837%2frevised-ordinance-allows-safe-u-turns-in-franklin%3fclienttype%3drssstory Thats what I mean by scary, I expect to have to read up on traffic regulations when I drive in a different country, but for all practical purposes the rules are exactly the same anywhere in the UK. Allowing towns of cities to make their own laws sounds like anarchy. In Scotland, for instance, the Start of Motorway signs do not indicate the start of National Speed Limit (70mph) as they do in England and Wales. But the difference is taken care of by having 70mph signs in Scotland. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Jul 7, 2012 2:00 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:36 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: However, whether or not U-turns are allowed at all varies from place to place. Some towns categorically forbid U-turns; some allow them only where signs state they are allowed; some allow them except where signs forbid them; and some towns allow them in general as long as you aren't doing them in a reckless manner. That is scary, is there signage? or is everyone expected to just know? In Oregon and Washington, it's illegal to u-turn at any controlled intersection except when posted otherwise. For the purpose of this rule, an intersection with a signal, yield or stop facing any direction counts as a controlled intersection. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Pieren wrote: but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ? Probably not. Here they leave a small (about 3 meter long) gap in the solid line whenever there's a tiny one lane side road (or a driveway) and it's not necessary to ban turning left onto said driveway or similar. An u-turn would be likewise allowed at that spot. Even if I'm known for going - as some would say - overkill by splitting ways to short bits for some changing road attributes, I don't think it's reasonable to have a three meter long way-bit on both sides of an intersection just to make sure that routers don't think they can't turn left (or u-turn) there. And to be exact, in most countries overtaking in the opposite direction lanes is forbidden within an intersection, even when the solid line doesn't continue through the intersection. An overtaking restriction can be (shouldn't, but can) given with just a traffic sign. I'll need to see if I (or anybody else) can find a spot where a multilane (3+ lanes) undivided road has a no overtaking sign in the direction with several lanes, but doesn't have a solid or double solid line in the middle. Since I started mapping overtaking=* tags back in 2009, I've found that there's a border case that the current values can't convey thoroughly: On a multilane (3+) undivided road, overtaking in the direction with two or more lanes may be - forbidden only if using the opposite direction lanes (appropriate solid line) - forbidden regardless of the lane used ( =no ) - allowed on all lanes (given no oncoming traffic ( =yes) -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
I think no_left_turn is the best solution. The line on the middle of the street is not a u-turn indicator, it is an overtake indicator which can be tagged with overtaking=no and overtaking=both. Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Janko 2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Hi all, Someone on the help site is questioning about a missing u-turn restriction on a roundabout junction with splitter islands ([1] in French). The problem is when you take one roundabout exit and want to come back to the roundabout, a router like OSRM is telling you to immediatly turn left after the divider although it is not allowed on the ground. He is pointing one example on OSRM : http://map.project-osrm.org/?hl=frloc=47.291040,-2.356550loc=47.291970,-2.356720z=18center=47.291347,-2.357208df=0 With the aearial imagery (can be enabled on OSRM), we can see that the u-turn is forbiden on about 10..15 meters after the splitter island with a painted continuous line on the ground. I don't think a no-turn-left-restriction relation is the best solution here since we just indicate the restriction at the splitter island node but we don't say at which point it will be possible to u-turn. I think the best solution is to represent the continuous painted line on the 15 meters road segment. The best tag I've found so far is the divider proposal on the wiki ([2]) but is not very popular ([3]). Any thought ? Pieren [1] http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/13939/interdiction-de-tourner-sur-entreesortie-de-rond-point [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road [3] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/divider ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com I think no_left_turn is the best solution. Actually, no_u_turn would be better. It's the same for the router, but not the same for the user interface. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 03/07/2012 13:29, Janko Mihelić wrote: I think no_left_turn is the best solution. The line on the middle of the street is not a u-turn indicator, it is an overtake indicator which can be tagged with overtaking=no and overtaking=both. Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Not sure about other countries, but in UK and NL a solid line means (formally) no crossing and not no overtaking. For larger vehicles it might be effectively the same thing, but for motorcycles (for example) it's not as they can overtake another motorcycle without crossing the line. So if it's a solid line, that also means no U-turns, and also no left turn (driving on right). Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl Not sure about other countries, but in UK and NL a solid line means (formally) no crossing and not no overtaking. For larger vehicles it might be effectively the same thing, but for motorcycles (for example) it's not as they can overtake another motorcycle without crossing the line. So if it's a solid line, that also means no U-turns, and also no left turn (driving on right). It's probably the same here, I just didn't know. Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. You still have to put a restriction relation on the node where the roads meet. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Are you sure that the dotted overtake line allows you to make a u-turn? Well, usually, a no-u-turn restriction is indicated at intersections. The relation restriction in OSM is also desgined for intersection nodes. Here we have a road segment with a solid line which forbids overtaking, u-turning or any kind of crossing the line for all vehicles for the last 10..15 meters before the roundabout. Sometimes it is symbolized with zebras instead of solid lines (a mean to widen the line to an area). The restriction applies on a road segment, not only at the intersection node before the splitter island. That's why I think the relation is not appropriate here. We have to indicate to routers where the u-turn is forbiden on way itself but also on start/end nodes of those ways (like here for the splitter island intersection node). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk The router does need fixing however as U-turns around a roundabout divider island are rarely sensible and should not be treated as a junction. Phil I think this is the wrong way to look at this. If you rely on routers to make this kinds of decisions, you are going to have a lot of problems. What if there was a roundabout island where you were allowed to u-turn? You should put in a allow_roundabout_u_turn or something. Also, some routers are not going to have the same logic. Anyway, if you don't put a no_u_turn restriction in this case, routers are rarely going to route through that, so I think we are safe either way :) Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. I discover the overtake tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ? You still have to put a restriction relation on the node where the roads meet. Hmmm. You mean that all divider island needs a no-u-turn restriction relation ? That will be a huge amount of new relations to create ... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, if you don't put a no_u_turn restriction in this case, routers are rarely going to route through that, so I think we are safe either way :) I think the case can appear very often. Imagine a router based on OSM data and you take the wrong roundabout exit. The router will re-route you and most probably with a u-turn, back to the roundabout (but you are right, because of the delays and distance, most probably after the divider intersection node). But anyway, representing the no-crossing is important for routing and we should consolidate the wiki between the overtaking and divider tags. Could we consider that overtaking=no applies to the end nodes as well, like we do for the oneway restriction ? Pieren Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Janko, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:12:16 schrieb Janko Mihelić: I think this is the wrong way to look at this. If you rely on routers to make this kinds of decisions, you are going to have a lot of problems. What if there was a roundabout island where you were allowed to u-turn? You should put in a allow_roundabout_u_turn or something. Also, some routers are not going to have the same logic. Anyway, if you don't put a no_u_turn restriction in this case, routers are rarely going to route through that, so I think we are safe either way :) They will happily use that turn for re-routing. *Always* tag such restrictions. This is not limited to roundabouts, it is scary how many turn restrictions are missing in general because people think they are obvious. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Pieren, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:21:18 schrieb Pieren: I think the case can appear very often. Imagine a router based on OSM data and you take the wrong roundabout exit. The router will re-route you and most probably with a u-turn, back to the roundabout (but you are right, because of the delays and distance, most probably after the divider intersection node). But anyway, representing the no-crossing is important for routing and we should consolidate the wiki between the overtaking and divider tags. Indeed. Could we consider that overtaking=no applies to the end nodes as well, like we do for the oneway restriction ? In what way does oneway=yes apply to end nodes? Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: But anyway, representing the no-crossing is important for routing and we should consolidate the wiki between the overtaking and divider tags. I agree, we could put something like routers should offer 180° only when you have overtake=both Could we consider that overtaking=no applies to the end nodes as well, like we do for the oneway restriction ? Maybe for cases when two out of three roads are oneway, and the third has overtake=no.. But even in that case, I think a strong rule like no_left_turn restriction is the best solution. Everything else makes things complicated.. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: In what way does oneway=yes apply to end nodes? I mean : you don't add a no-turn-left or no-turn-right restriction relation at intersections where one of the streets is oneway. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. AFAIK there is no difference between a double solid line and a single one. You are not allowed to cross them (but you could if you didn't care about traffic rules, and you can if you are walking). This implies generally a legal restriction against overtaking, turning left and u-turns. The router does need fixing however as U-turns around a roundabout divider island are rarely sensible and should not be treated as a junction. well, whether something is sensible or not depends on a lot of parameters (e.g. the amount of other traffic). We have to tell the router that there is a solid line in the first place, something we currently mostly don't do (see taginfo, http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/divider has only 192 occurencies on ways). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. I discover the overtake tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ? -1 overtaking isn't used very much either (less than 2000 times), and as written above: a solid line is not only about overtaking and u-turns: you are never allowed to cross it in any case (besides you are an emergency vehicle in case of an emergency or similar, e.g. you are also not allowed to turn left). I think that the divider-proposal has a much better semantics compared to overtaking. Lets tag directly what we mean, not overtaking=no if we want to say no u-turn. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 15:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make you turn around there. They don't do this yet, but probably will. I discover the overtake tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking but the wiki doesn't say explicitely that overtaking=no means no u-turn as well. Could we write this assertion ? -1 overtaking isn't used very much either (less than 2000 times), and as written above: a solid line is not only about overtaking and u-turns: you are never allowed to cross it in any case (besides you are an emergency vehicle in case of an emergency or similar, e.g. you are also not allowed to turn left). I think that the divider-proposal has a much better semantics compared to overtaking. Lets tag directly what we mean, not overtaking=no if we want to say no u-turn. In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. if you make no distinction at all this has the problem that you will get worse results for other use cases (pedestrians, emergency vehicles, bankrobbers, ...). IMHO it is important to be able to differentiate between not possible (physically) and not legal. You could associate the two ways with a relation (i.e. lane-mapping, e.g. area relation), but I feel that is would somehow be overkill. Why not a simple tag that says: there is a solid line between the two opposing lanes (- divider). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 15:20, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. if you make no distinction at all this has the problem that you will get worse results for other use cases (pedestrians, emergency vehicles, bankrobbers, ...). IMHO it is important to be able to differentiate between not possible (physically) and not legal. You could associate the two ways with a relation (i.e. lane-mapping, e.g. area relation), but I feel that is would somehow be overkill. Why not a simple tag that says: there is a solid line between the two opposing lanes (- divider). Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Martin, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 14:56:21 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. AFAIK there is no difference between a double solid line and a single one. You are not allowed to cross them (but you could if you didn't care about traffic rules, and you can if you are walking). This implies generally a legal restriction against overtaking, turning left and u-turns. No, it doesn't. * A divider does not imply overtaking restrictions, as has been argued before. In most (all?) countries, you are still allowed to overtake as long as you don't cross the divider. * A divider does not prevent left-turns or u-turns. Reason: a divider is a linear feature, it is applied to ways, and implications on nodes (especially end nodes) are completely undefined. A closer look reveals that dividers at nodes are way more complicated, and we already have an answer to that: turn restrictions. well, whether something is sensible or not depends on a lot of parameters (e.g. the amount of other traffic). We have to tell the router that there is a solid line in the first place, something we currently mostly don't do (see taginfo, http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/divider has only 192 occurencies on ways). No surprise since divider seems to be an abandonded feature. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Hi Markus, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. There is a reason why this is a bad idea: routing along linear features has to work under the assumption that routes are just paths in the data. By splitting ways, you're removing quite a lot of possible routes; e.g. try pedestrian routing to the house opposite to yours. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. Does this mean you separate the road when overtaking is not allowed, and put them together when it's allowed? How can this be better than tagging with overtake=no or divider=legal? Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: No, it doesn't. * A divider does not imply overtaking restrictions, as has been argued before. In most (all?) countries, you are still allowed to overtake as long as you don't cross the divider. True for overtaking. But it' correct for turning left/right and u-turn restrictions. * A divider does not prevent left-turns or u-turns. Reason: a divider is a linear feature, it is applied to ways, and implications on nodes (especially end nodes) are completely undefined. Hmm, look at the wiki first: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road and consider this assumption: By default, when a divided way has a junction with a non-divided way, the division is unbroken. But I agree that such assumptions are very hard to keep in OSM (where usually a tag shall be self-explanatory). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Jul 3, 2012 8:07 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm, look at the wiki first: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road and consider this assumption: By default, when a divided way has a junction with a non-divided way, the division is unbroken. This is something that southern California really needs some serious help with. There's quite a few dual carriageway roads with braids at intersections introduced after the TIGER cleanup. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 16:47, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: Hi Markus, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. There is a reason why this is a bad idea: routing along linear features has to work under the assumption that routes are just paths in the data. By splitting ways, you're removing quite a lot of possible routes; e.g. try pedestrian routing to the house opposite to yours. Well, my house is by a residential street and there's no solid line in the middle :) Usually the solid line is there for an reason, like that there's lot of traffic. I wouldn't like it if a pedestrian routing engine asked me to cross a six lane heavily trafficked street just because there's no physical separation. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On 3 July 2012 17:02, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank robbers and emergency vehicle drivers make anyway their own decision on the spot. And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. Does this mean you separate the road when overtaking is not allowed, and put them together when it's allowed? How can this be better than tagging with overtake=no or divider=legal? I've mostly mapped in cities, where the issue of overtaking isn't that relevant, roads don't change from solid line to broken line just to allow overtaking /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. You are allowed to cross to turn, such as to make a uturn. To indicate do no cross you need a yellow median island. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 15:40 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. You are allowed to cross to turn, such as to make a uturn. To indicate do no cross you need a yellow median island. Not in France, there a solid line means do no cross, hence there is a broken line on Autoroutes between the carriageway and hard shoulder. If the line was solid it would prohibit anyone going onto the hard shoulder. In the UK this line is solid. However my point about U-turns around such islands is that there usually just isn't the road width to do a U-turn, It is no more a sensible maneuver than doing a U-turn where a dual carriageway becomes a 2 lane road, such as this http://map.project-osrm.org/NX and the streetview version http://goo.gl/maps/7c48 Whilst not prohibited, an accident whilst doing this is likely to get you the standard catch all of driving without due care and attention and no doubt generate more 'Satnav causes accident' type headlines. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Jul 3, 2012 8:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: In France, a solid line means do not cross. It is more than do not overtake. +1, I guess it's the same everywhere. In Florida, and probably all of the USA, double solid yellow means do not cross TO PASS. You are allowed to cross to turn, such as to make a uturn. To indicate do no cross you need a yellow median island. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging However, whether or not U-turns are allowed at all varies from place to place. Some towns categorically forbid U-turns; some allow them only where signs state they are allowed; some allow them except where signs forbid them; and some towns allow them in general as long as you aren't doing them in a reckless manner. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily could cross. yes, if you really want to go that deep into detail I suggest you use the area relation or something similar, which allows for exactly this: store detail information about the kind of barrier, including heights and so on. I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. and if there are interruptions in the solid line you will get really ugly separations and reconjuctions every few meters at some places? And about pedestrians, I add sidewalks around such street and tag the street with foot=no. to me this seems wrong. The presence of a sidewalk doesn't automatically imply a foot=no on the street, at least in some jurisdictions. E.g. in Germany as a pedestrian you have to use the street when carrying big loads or in other cases when the sidewalk is not appropriate. It also requires really a lot of connections between the two, which in the real (OSM) world seems to be a problem: the routing in all the places I saw so far got worse with explict sidewalks mapped as footways because of these missing links. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
