Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

This is nonetheless correct mapping! What you are seeing it the resulting impedance mismatch from using linear ways to map what on the ground are actually areas. That sort segment at a sharp angle only exists for connectivity purposes. And the data makes perfect sense when seen in the

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Regarding classing paint as a barrier, you wouldn't map a bicycle lane as a cycle way if it is only a painted line ( https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=285967329802439) but if there is a barrier (Kreb, Armco, parked cars, etc.) it would be mapped as a separate cycleway

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 13:53, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hello, > > Things have escalated somewhat: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118091243 > Yeah, we now have the situation where turn left slip lanes have been mapped as sudden sharp angles, rather than gradual turns, which just looks

Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

Mapbox has a helpful page on the present day preference of squared intersection mapping instead of the older X mapped method. I guess this has evolved over time due to clearer and higher resolution imagery.

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

I agree that the ways should only be split for a physical separation, and turn lanes should use turn:lanes and legality of changing lanes change:lanes as Thorsten points out. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Thanks for the tip about the "change" tag. So here is what I've done - does it sound right? - in the section where the slip lane joins the 2-lane through road (where lanes=3), I have added: "change:lanes=not_right|not_left| " (this hopefully means that the left hand lane cannot change

Re: [talk-au] Mass fix-me's with very strange comments

Thanks Phil, I never knew you could use NWR for all elements so thank you for that gem. I would probably agree to remove in bulk the at least 5216 fixme's with a value = '20', '21' and '22' and keep the remaining couple of hundred others he has raised or review these further. Thanks Graeme and

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of the cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly established for over a decade. To quote the wiki ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways ): A divided

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

Hello, Things have escalated somewhat: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118091243 (There has definitely been something lost in translation, as this change isn't an example of what I was speaking to the editor about.) As Kim said, I'm not talking about the marginal cases. These

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

***physically*** Legal lane change restrictions are tagged with change:lanes From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 08:58 To: Luke Stewart Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections Looking

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

To add to the ambiguity of what physically separate means I'll highlight the roudabout joining Wonga Road and Oban Road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-37.79463/145.24154 Here the separation between lanes is similar to a long thin speed hump - you can drive over it, but it is a

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

Personally, for shallow slip lanes like this, I map with the angle of the island and do not make curves where it joins the new road. On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Continuing on with that line of thought & looking at the example mentioned > in the other thread: >

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

There are many situations in Australia where you are permitted to cross an unbroken white line (for instance, moving to a special purpose lane). The wiki is pretty unambiguous, "where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements

Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

This might be tangential to the discussion, on the other hand, it might be a kind of "hidden" or unstated assumption about how ways are "interpreted" in OSM to mean some implied given semantic, which in my opinion, they shouldn't do. So it could be revealing. Here goes: any given way should

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Hello again Dian If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I would suggest you are physically separated. It does not have to be a concrete barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a police officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 06:48, cleary wrote: > > Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or > imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the > law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a > physical barrier that

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

Continuing on with that line of thought & looking at the example mentioned in the other thread: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-31.99548/115.99338 How should that left turn from Tonkin Hwy to Hale Rd be mapped? As a relatively smooth curve the way it is now, or as an abrupt 45° angle

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this comment: "only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically change lanes." Physically, or legally? Looking at the Princes Hwy/William Rd example, yes,

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Hi Cleary, Two points: Paint isn't a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it's legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being unable to change lanes doesn't make a single road into two roads. If I can't merge left then I'm not travelling on a different

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a physical barrier that cannot be traversed. On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM,

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

change:lanes=* can represent that solid line. While that would implicitly define the inability to turn right, it can in addition be made explicit using a turn restriction relation with ways as via, specifically: type=restriction restriction=no_turn_right from:

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Here is the osm location https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-31.9881/115.9857 > On 4 Mar 2022, at 9:59 pm, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: > >  > This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I’ll > start a new thread so as not to distract the original. > > “

[talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I'll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. " 'Don't split ways if there is no physical separation' is one of the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM." My query is about how to correctly map an

[talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

(forgot to x-post to talk-au) Hi, The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this rule (same goes for ways that start when

Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

I have to disagree with you here in the strongest possible terms. "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation" is one of the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM. The ways as mapped in this case are simply and unarguably outright wrong, because they imply a physical separate that

[talk-au] People's views on duplicating ref=* on the ways in a route relation.

There are a bunch of map notes in the NT flagging issues with route numbers changing to alpha-numerical (eg 34 -> B34). The routes have been mapped with a ref tag on the ways, which will also have to be changed. Is this duplicate tagging something we want? I can see it causing problems where