On 2019-01-11 23:15, Warin wrote:
On 11/01/19 21:45, Markus wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:40, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote:
* -35.3409195, 149.1616891
Ways 77001149 and 77000891 should IMHO not be mapped like that but
mapped with turn:lanes.
On 11/01/19 21:45, Markus wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:40, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote:
See below two cases where we would simplify the geometry:
* -32.0914374, 116.0129206
Is seen no big problem in how the roads are layed out there. Coming
A left turn there would be legal, unless there is a local sign.
So I would not place a turn restriction on it base on satellite imagery.
On 12/01/19 07:47, Jem wrote:
Spot on. Although the routing engine data could impose a turn
restriction here based upon geometry as part of their data
Spot on. Although the routing engine data could impose a turn restriction
here based upon geometry as part of their data pipeline.
I wonder if it is legal to turn there and, if not, does that form part of
the ground truth IRT OSM, regardless of whether there is a sign present.
On Fri, 11 Jan
On this post you can find an image about how we would edit these cases:
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/AU-NZ_mapping_projects/issues/5
Regards,
Petra
-Original Message-
From: Marc Gemis
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 2:51 PM
To: Maarten Deen
Cc:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Editing
If you miss the on-ramp and are waiting for the traffic signals, a
router can recalculate the route in the meantime and still try to let
you turn left at the traffic signals.
m.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 1:47 PM Maarten Deen wrote:
>
> I agree that Markus' solution is more elegant (and I was more
I agree that Markus' solution is more elegant (and I was more looking to
the offramp itself). I would normally also map it like that but I also
don't go out of my way to correct situations like that.
The way it is mapped now is more organic, more as you would actually
drive. As such I don't see
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:23, Jem wrote:
>
> I agree. And a supplementary question... would you also add a no-left-turn
> restriction from https://osm.org/way/581948344 at
> https://osm.org/node/5680879176? I would, and have done in the past. But to
> be honest, I'm not sure if a turn like
> I'd map that place like that:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ID_Screen_Shot_from_-32.0914374,_116.0129206.png
I agree. And a supplementary question... would you also add a
no-left-turn restriction from https://osm.org/way/581948344 at
https://osm.org/node/5680879176? I would, and have
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:40, Maarten Deen wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote:
>
> >
> > See below two cases where we would simplify the geometry:
> >
> > * -32.0914374, 116.0129206
>
> Is seen no big problem in how the roads are layed out there. Coming from
> the
On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote:
Since January we started to work on road geometry in Canberra, Perth
and Melbourne and we came across some intersections where roads (turn
lanes) are mapped separately even where there is no physical divider
or chevron markings.
See below two cases
Hi everyone,
I'm Petra and I am part of the mapping team at Telenav.
Since January we started to work on road geometry in Canberra, Perth and
Melbourne and we came across some intersections where roads (turn lanes) are
mapped separately even where there is no physical divider or chevron
12 matches
Mail list logo
