On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local > mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two > lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the > middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).
I am one of those mappers - So disclaimer applies - i am tainted. I am in favour of relaxing this rule. We currently have strips of road where we currently handle this relaxed e.g. Motorway links or exits where we (OSM Germany) map ~50% of the exits with completely seperate ways although there is only a single line in the middle. I'd like to use it for a 4 lane motorway size like road where is only a double line in the middle. Double line means, not allowed to cross, and additionally - no part of a vehicle may leap over the line. So in practice left turns are not allowed, u-turn is not allowed. And for this specific strip foot and bicycle are disallowed and we had no speed limit for years (Was introduced couple years back). Rational: Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience mapping it one or the other way. At every way junction one has to model every disallowed way/turn. From my experience this is very error prone. I am doing a lot of QA concerning routing (100K routes every 2 hours for the region i am mostly interested in). From the experience doing this the last 6 years it shows that meanwhile handling of turn restrictions is causing 90% of routing problems due to people unintentional breaking, abusing, misinterpreting or overcomplicating turn restrictions. So - in other words. I am in favour of the KISS principle. Make it easy for the average mapper and let them handle as they seem fit. As a rule of thumb the current handling is okay. But there is no "one size fits all". And I'd like to relax the rules in favour of reduced complexity. And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided highways. First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second - it does not make any statement about whether we MUST draw a non physically divided highway as one line. (I dont oppose the fact that in 99% of the cases it makes absolute sense to do so). Flo [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
