Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
My apologies Thorsten and Frederik, I stand humbly corrected. Best wishes Ian > On 30 Jul 2021, at 6:27 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Hi, > >> On 30.07.21 01:43, Little Maps wrote: >> If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully >> build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” >> vs “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. > > It has, and it should. Anything added to OSM makes editing more > complicated for mappers to come - *especially* when it's relations that > always have the potential to trip up the newbie mapper. > > Something that is completely unnecessary reduces the ease of editing of > our map while adding no value to compensate for that. It makes it harder > for us to achieve what we want - a map editable by anyone. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
Hi, On 30.07.21 01:43, Little Maps wrote: > If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully > build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” > vs “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. It has, and it should. Anything added to OSM makes editing more complicated for mappers to come - *especially* when it's relations that always have the potential to trip up the newbie mapper. Something that is completely unnecessary reduces the ease of editing of our map while adding no value to compensate for that. It makes it harder for us to achieve what we want - a map editable by anyone. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
Looking at the example - this is a really complex situation where the roundabout is at the entrance to a multi-level car park with a fly-ramp taking off to an upper parking level. Is the roundabout on public land or is it part of the precinct for the associated shopping mall? I would imagine the "no U-turn" restriction applies to accessing the fly-ramp dangerously. So commenting generally based on this one situation is a bit risky. Adrian Get BlueMail for Android On 30 Jul 2021, 12:33, at 12:33, Andrew Harvey wrote: >Some of them like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13031072 where >the >no-u-turn restriction is on the same way don't make sense, and it's >fair to >ask for further information about why it was added, and if that's not >provided then I think it's fine to remove. > >I admit that while I'd much prefer routers to fix their problems I've >been >given so much bad routing due to u-turns at intersections that I've >been >mapping some. I think microsoft mapped a lot, so it's common in the >database. I think at this point we might as well make an exception and >allow these traffic light no-u-turns to be mapped. > >In the roundabout case, that's why I dislike splitting the way into two >oneway. It would be better to have a single way and just tag it as a >traffic island or hard/soft median on that section or something. >Nonetheless some mappers do it this way and in that case, the no-u-turn >restriction is probably required. > >On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 09:46, Little Maps wrote: > >> If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully >> build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. >“Necessary” vs >> “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it >were, >> heaps of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor >that >> the edits are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, >they >> are clearly happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have >different >> interests and pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and >> interesting, even if it is frustrating at times. It’s a big map. >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > > > > >___ >Talk-au mailing list >Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
Some of them like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13031072 where the no-u-turn restriction is on the same way don't make sense, and it's fair to ask for further information about why it was added, and if that's not provided then I think it's fine to remove. I admit that while I'd much prefer routers to fix their problems I've been given so much bad routing due to u-turns at intersections that I've been mapping some. I think microsoft mapped a lot, so it's common in the database. I think at this point we might as well make an exception and allow these traffic light no-u-turns to be mapped. In the roundabout case, that's why I dislike splitting the way into two oneway. It would be better to have a single way and just tag it as a traffic island or hard/soft median on that section or something. Nonetheless some mappers do it this way and in that case, the no-u-turn restriction is probably required. On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 09:46, Little Maps wrote: > If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully > build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” vs > “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it were, > heaps of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor that > the edits are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, they > are clearly happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have different > interests and pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and > interesting, even if it is frustrating at times. It’s a big map. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” vs “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it were, heaps of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor that the edits are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, they are clearly happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have different interests and pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and interesting, even if it is frustrating at times. It’s a big map.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
I don't suppose they're completely wrong, as you can't do a u-turn there, but no, there's also no real point in adding it. It's incredibly bad manners to just ignore all attempts at contact though :-( Thanks Graeme On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 23:30, wrote: > He added another 100 to 200 pointless “no u turn” restrictions as far as I > can see, without replying to my previous changeset comment (or any of his > previous changesets that anyone has ever commented on as far as I can tell): > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108815135 > > > > Like, if there is a roundabout and the entries/exits have been mapped as a > short distance of split one-way roads, he’s added a “now u-turn” > restriction to every point where these come together. > > > > Could someone please have a look and tell me if I’m completely out of line > thinking this introduces a huge amount of unnecessary noise to the map? > > > > *From:* osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au < > osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > *Sent:* Monday, 26 July 2021 15:20 > *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this? > > > > I just noticed this change set: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108562320 > > > > And I have a hard time making sense of it. > > > > As far as I can tell, these are primarily 100s of totally unnecessary turn > restrictions? > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
He added another 100 to 200 pointless "no u turn" restrictions as far as I can see, without replying to my previous changeset comment (or any of his previous changesets that anyone has ever commented on as far as I can tell): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108815135 Like, if there is a roundabout and the entries/exits have been mapped as a short distance of split one-way roads, he's added a "now u-turn" restriction to every point where these come together. Could someone please have a look and tell me if I'm completely out of line thinking this introduces a huge amount of unnecessary noise to the map? From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Sent: Monday, 26 July 2021 15:20 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this? I just noticed this change set: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108562320 And I have a hard time making sense of it. As far as I can tell, these are primarily 100s of totally unnecessary turn restrictions? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
I just noticed this change set: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108562320 And I have a hard time making sense of it. As far as I can tell, these are primarily 100s of totally unnecessary turn restrictions? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
