[Talk-GB] GeoData 2013
As they are free to attend (watch the £30 potential no-show penalty though) thought I would circulate as may be of interest to some: http://www.geoinformationgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GeoDATA-2013 -Flyer.pdf Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On 8 May 2013 16:09, Jason Woollacott wool...@hotmail.com wrote: And then we end up with disputes over what areas you are and are not permitted to enter. Broken Lines, and you are permitted to enter if safe, solid lines, only permitted to enter in an emergency. Both of which technically allow you to do a u turn, in the event that a incident dictates so. And lets not even discuss yellow box junctions... Jason. (UniEagle) +1 regarding broken/solid lines do not create an absolute barrier. The white diagonal lines you commonly see are more an advisory that you shouldn't use the area unless it safe to do so and you can drive on them if you think it's necessary, although if have a continuous line at the edge you should not cross that line unless there is an emergency. UK legislation is fairly clear that Traffic Islands (with or without hatched markings before are after) are not considered to create two carriagways. We're not mapping legislation, but nethertheless I wouldnt create two carriageways for a traffic island in a stretch of road. I assume it's acceptable at some complex junctions (eg entrance to large roundabouts) where 'traffic island' cause an absolute split in the road as part of the function of the junction. But back to the point made in the first post. I'd agree that it is wrong to split a road for the reasons given, and I think it should be actively avoided due to the confusion it will cause. Jason (jamicu) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On 09/05/2013 12:56, Jason Cunningham wrote: UK legislation is fairly clear that Traffic Islands (with or without hatched markings before are after) are not considered to create two carriagways. We're not mapping legislation, but nethertheless I wouldnt create two carriageways for a traffic island in a stretch of road... What do people think of this: http://osm.org/go/0EQSJEoZT-- (aerial: http://binged.it/10kuDNm ) and this: http://osm.org/go/eu6_VCkLp-- (aerial: http://binged.it/16js1Ye ) I was dubious when I first saw what someone (not me) had done in these two locations. On the other hand, it is hard to represent properly how pedestrians are intended navigate a junction if you don't represent the islands, so I have warmed to it a bit. It does make rendering a street map a mess, often with lots of apparently superfluous one way arrows and a bulge, except at a very large scale. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: What do people think of this: http://osm.org/go/0EQSJEoZT-- (aerial: http://binged.it/10kuDNm ) and this: http://osm.org/go/eu6_VCkLp-- (aerial: http://binged.it/16js1Ye ) I like these (although the first one isn't quite optimal, I might have a go at improving it soon); I'm thinking particularly of navigation for the blind, where a lot of detail is useful. It could also be useful for people planning outsize load HGV movements. I don't think it's too cluttered; it's simply a complicated piece of road layout, and the map reflects it. __John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
I did something similar to this junction: http://osm.org/go/0EQSYTukM-- / http://binged.it/16jtNsx (note that the most detailed aerial photo is quite old and predates the guided busway - zoom out for more recent imagery) primarily to get routing right. The current version reflects some combination of physical traffic islands (definitely necessary to get cycle / pedestrian routing correct) and paint islands. If there's a better way to represent this while keeping enough information to be able to route sensibly, how should it be done? Oliver On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: On 09/05/2013 12:56, Jason Cunningham wrote: UK legislation is fairly clear that Traffic Islands (with or without hatched markings before are after) are not considered to create two carriagways. We're not mapping legislation, but nethertheless I wouldnt create two carriageways for a traffic island in a stretch of road... What do people think of this: http://osm.org/go/0EQSJEoZT-- (aerial: http://binged.it/10kuDNm ) and this: http://osm.org/go/eu6_VCkLp-- (aerial: http://binged.it/16js1Ye ) I was dubious when I first saw what someone (not me) had done in these two locations. On the other hand, it is hard to represent properly how pedestrians are intended navigate a junction if you don't represent the islands, so I have warmed to it a bit. It does make rendering a street map a mess, often with lots of apparently superfluous one way arrows and a bulge, except at a very large scale. David __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On 09/05/2013 13:30, Oliver Jowett wrote: If there's a better way to represent this while keeping enough information to be able to route sensibly, how should it be done? You can set up turn restrictions with relations where necessary. But as John said, it doesn't do much for pedestrians (or cyclists in some cases). On the other hand, it can make routers give shaky information where they see the split as a separate junction. I note Bing models the first example I gave in much the same was as whoever did it on OSM did. As I said, I'm in two minds about this, especially because of the clumsy rendering it gives rise to when you can't see the detail. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: On 09/05/2013 13:30, Oliver Jowett wrote: If there's a better way to represent this while keeping enough information to be able to route sensibly, how should it be done? You can set up turn restrictions with relations where necessary. Right, I have turn restrictions in the current junction. It's been a while since I did it, but IIRC I actually needed to split up the junction to be able to express the turn restrictions correctly. Oliver ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
First of all - thanks for all the replies. I've added a link to this thread to the map note. David Earl wrote: What do people think of this: http://osm.org/go/0EQSJEoZT-- (aerial: http://binged.it/10kuDNm ) It's a couple of months since I was there, but my recollection is that that one (Cambridge) is a fair representation of reality. There is stuff on the (very narrow) strip in the middle of the road isn't there? A westbound ambulance wanting to do a U-turn would have to go as far as the former garage (where the white structure at the top of the Bing imagery is) to turn back I think. It's a different situation to the Lincoln ones, where as far as I could see there is just paint keeping traffic apart. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote: First of all - thanks for all the replies. I've added a link to this thread to the map note. David Earl wrote: What do people think of this: http://osm.org/go/0EQSJEoZT-- (aerial: http://binged.it/10kuDNm ) It's a couple of months since I was there, but my recollection is that that one (Cambridge) is a fair representation of reality. There is stuff on the (very narrow) strip in the middle of the road isn't there? A westbound ambulance wanting to do a U-turn would have to go as far as the former garage (where the white structure at the top of the Bing imagery is) to turn back I think. The centre strips are raised islands with a kerb, and most of them have barriers too. Having cycled through that junction regularly in the past, I can vouch for it being as complicated as it looks! Oliver ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On 9 May 2013 13:06, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: What do people think of this: http://osm.org/go/0EQSJEoZT-- (aerial: http://binged.it/10kuDNm ) and this: http://osm.org/go/eu6_VCkLp-- (aerial: http://binged.it/16js1Ye ) These look good to me. I have mapped a number of junctions in a similar way. As for traffic islands, I wouldn't create a divided highway for a 2 metre long refuge but I probably would for a 50 metre section. If it means anything, the other mapping providers (OS, Google) seem to do that as well. Is there any consensus tagging scheme for providing OSM based lane guidance and if there is does anyone know of an app that implements it? Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
