There is no problem adding a turning circle to courts as long as they have one. Before the turning circle tag was rendered, I saw the occasional mini-roundabout used as a turning circle, because it "made the map look right".
Stephen 2008/12/11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +1 > > I completely agree with all of Darrin's points. > > I was unaware of the decision on the mailing list when I started mapping a > about 1.5 years ago. I read the descriptions on the wiki and went with a > proper roundabout for suburban roundabouts, since they don't fit the > definition of the mini-roundabout. I don't even recall seeing one in > Melbourne, you always have to deviate around even small ones. As a Potlatch > user, it sucks a bit to add them, but Merkaartor & I think JOSM have a tool > to make it easy. > > I'm a big fan of "mapping what's on the ground" and "don't tag for the > renderers/routers". But I like the idea of global consistency, it makes it > easier on all users of the raw data. That's what I hope Map Features will > provide (consistency), but the voting has it's issues as well. There's talk > on the Talk mailing list of having a Core Features page. So for eg. I'd be in > favour of using the wiki definitions of place=* tags. > > I plan on submitting a proposal for the roundabout tag, where you can add it > to a node like a mini_roundabout, for use in simple suburban type > roundabouts. Something like junction:inner_width=3mcould specify the island > size, making it possible for pretty rendering. Weird intersecting ways or > large roundabouts would have to continue as is. > Anyone have any suggestions before I create the proposal? > > PS. Was it me adding turning_circle to courts? The wiki page description > seems to match my use of it (I waited many months for it to be > proposed/accepted/added to renderers). > > Cheers, BlueMM > > --- On Thu, 11/12/08, Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts? >> To: [email protected] >> Received: Thursday, 11 December, 2008, 3:10 PM >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:55:13 +1100 >> Ian Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > I've looked back through the logs, found the one discussion, noted >> > > that it was basically a 4-3 split of contributors and since every >> > > discussion on it has been "we discussed it and decided this". >> > > Hardly a consensus in my mind. >> > >> > Since you made the effort to go back through the logs, and re-read the >> > discussion that took place then, I'm surprised you would reach the >> > conclusion that peoples position was solely related to effort. >> >> I suspect that's because you were in the discussion and supported the >> views of the first poster, hence you didn't look at how he expressed >> it. (see below) >> >> > I disagree that there hasn't been consensus on its use. There always >> > have been differences of opioion, but as you say, most people have >> > been happy to accept that it is the way it is. That is consensus. >> >> Ok I'll pay that in the technical definition of the word you are >> correct. However given that all new people approach a project >> like this with some trepidation (For example it's taken me 10 months >> and someone altering work I've done to make me raise this issue which >> I've thought was wrong almost as soon as I found out about it) >> it's not surprising the 'consensus' has been maintained. >> >> OSM is littered with cases of things done badly to start with (which is >> not a problem in one sense because something needs to be started >> somewhere) and then carried on forever after (this is where it's a >> problem) in what appears to be consensus because no-ones been motivated >> to change it (The hideous is_in tag comes to mind). >> >> > I feel the approach you are taking is wrong. There are reasonable >> > arguments to use a mini-roundabout tag in Australia where it is >> > currently being used. If you want to convince people to not use it, >> > and to map using junction, take the time to understand and address >> > those arguments, and convince people that the best way is the way you >> > are suggesting. Don't dismiss its proponents as lazy, or worse still >> > as disruptive. Many of its these people have been valuable >> > contributors to getting the map done. >> >> Ok, I could have approached it a better way I'll admit that. But this >> issue boils down to the fact there are no actual reasons given for why >> mini_roundabout should be used! The discussion just seems to assume that >> every roundabout is a mini until it has reason to be bigger, it's not >> even discussed whether this is valid. >> >> The discussion resolves around what benefits the roundabout tag offers >> OVER the mini_roundabout tag, ignoring the fact they actually imply 2 >> quite different things in the first place. >> >> Historically the roundabout tag predates the mini-roundabout tag by at >> least 10 months in the wiki pages. So in effect the original >> mini_roundabout tag was devise to handle a very special case of >> roundabout that doesn't fit well with the normal definition in size, >> shape, signage and the fact you can drive straight over it in >> extenuating circumstances (I can't help but wonder if mini is >> referring more to it's HEIGHT that it's radius). >> >> But here in Australia we apparently want to turn that very specific case >> tag into the general tag and make the general tag for specific cases >> without actually providing any valid reason (since we are apparently not >> lazy). >> >> The general roundabout tag is still more accurate on the ground - You >> CAN'T drive straight through the center of the the average small >> suburban roundabout, you often can't even walk over it for the >> various things stuck on it. There is and island there, so why shouldn't >> there be an island on the map? >> >> So we in Australia have effectively reversed the precedence order of >> these roundabouts. >> >> -- >> >> =b > > > Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
