It sounds like one of those things where opinions are going to vary. Personally
I would split them, but I don’t think it’s a big deal to do it one way or the
other, and it doesn’t affect the map either way.
Mapping to make some random QA tool happy doesn’t sound tenable to me. Horea
(my
I generally split these ways. A couple of reasons:
1. Traffic is generally not meant to make U-turns here. Occasionally there is
an explicit no-U-turn sign, but most of the time there is a double white line
extending from the end of the median strip preventing turning.
2. If a route relation
For me, split ways means that there is some barrier between the two.
If there is no barrier then they should not be split.
On 22/01/19 08:33, David Wales wrote:
I don't know what the OSM convention is for this, but I tend to agree
with Nemanja. It makes more sense to split the two halves of
I don't know what the OSM convention is for this, but I tend to agree with
Nemanja. It makes more sense to split the two halves of the road, rather than
have them as a single way.
On 22 January 2019 8:23:35 am AEDT, "Nemanja Bračko" wrote:
>@Warin,
>
>I personally do not see why is it wrong
@Warin,
I personally do not see why is it wrong if you split? It is just two
segments merged in one node. Geometry and data are exactly the same just it
is represented as two, instead of one line.
If we go deeper in this issue, it is actually wrong, because you have
marked/mapped 2 physical
Personally I think that's a handy warning.
- Ben
On Tue., 22 Jan. 2019, 07:25 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 22/01/19 02:45, Nemanja Bračko wrote:
>
> I agree on that, but that's the way how this tool works.
>
>
> So you will have to accept that the tool is wrong and ignore its
On 22/01/19 02:45, Nemanja Bračko wrote:
I agree on that, but that's the way how this tool works.
So you will have to accept that the tool is wrong and ignore its output.
Altering the map to comply with a tool that is wrong is wrong.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:32 PM Marc Gemis
I agree on that, but that's the way how this tool works.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:32 PM Marc Gemis wrote:
> I think the QA tool should/could see that the sharp corner is in a point
> shared with another way and that there is no reason to report a warning.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM
I think the QA tool should/could see that the sharp corner is in a point
shared with another way and that there is no reason to report a warning.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM Nemanja Bračko wrote:
> Because tool doesn't know is this a special (allowed) case, or user's
> mistake. It just
Because tool doesn't know is this a special (allowed) case, or user's
mistake. It just reports that geometry is not logical.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:21 PM Marc Gemis wrote:
> Why does a split make any difference ? Is this a "special" feature of the
> QA-tool you are using ?
> The QA tool
Why does a split make any difference ? Is this a "special" feature of the
QA-tool you are using ?
The QA tool should understand that the sharp U-turn is not the only route
one can follow.
m.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:58 AM Nemanja Bračko wrote:
> Hi!
>
> You've been flagged as "Impossible
Hi!
You've been flagged as "Impossible angle in highway" many times because of
these situations:
[image: 2019-01-21 10_52_54-Window-min.jpg]
Just split this way (do not map it as one segment), and you will avoid to
get flagged.
Best Regards,
Nemanja
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:51 AM Horea
Hello all,
As we informed you two weeks ago we started working on Australia editing in
Canberra, Perth and Melbourne.
If you're curious in what we did, you can find our changesets using these links:
AUS ALL
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/filters?aoi=22638c89-517b-45b7-889a-749a6d99ffa9
AUS Flagged
13 matches
Mail list logo
