Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

On 23/12/2019 18:28, David Woolley wrote: On 23/12/2019 18:15, Nick Allen wrote: I may be missing something here, but https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099 looks okay to me. The OP was proposing that ,

Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

Hi, Yes, but the way it is currently mapped is the way I would chose, and have utilised on many roundabouts for public transport & cycle routes. Has something changed? If so I wasn't aware? Regards NickTallguy On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 18:28 +, David Woolley wrote: > On 23/12/2019 18:15, Nick

Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

On 23/12/2019 18:15, Nick Allen wrote: I may be missing something here, but https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099 looks okay to me. The OP was proposing that , , and

Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

Hi, I may be missing something here, but https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099 looks okay to me. The wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Public_transport_routes didn't give me any clues either. Regards Nick (Tallguy) On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 14:08 +1100, Warin

Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

On 23/12/2019 03:08, Warin wrote: I'm looking at Wivenhoe B1028 way 477263099. This is a segment of a roundabout. Would it not be better for the way to be a single feature in OSM? It is rarely a good idea to revert from more concrete to more abstract, so I would say no. Incidentally, many

[Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

I'm looking at Wivenhoe B1028 way 477263099. This is a segment of a roundabout. Would it not be better for the way to be a single feature in OSM? I think the route relations now handle roundabouts so there should be no problem there. Thoughts? ___