The primary questions here is: <Should a suburban roundabout be mapped as a node or as a loop?>
My position is a node for three reasons.. + When you cross this kind of roundabout when cycling, or with a learner driver, you don't have to worry about the characteristics of the road you are crossing (since you never turn into the traffic of the cross road, you just cross the roundabout). This isn't just about cyclists and learners. Its about the nature of the intersection. + It represents what is on the ground accurately. Often there is less of an actual diversion than many other traffic calming devices, which are not mapped. To draw it as a deviation in the road, just isn't what is there. + These have a very standardised appearance, and should be represented in a standardised way, like a template. The benefit isn't just in time-saving, but in identifying that all these roundabouts are very much the same. Once this is decided there are other questions to answer... <Is it reasonable to overload (reuse) a tag (mini-roundabout) originally designed to represent something else overseas, that doesn't exist in Australia?> <How to define this kind of roundabout?> <If we need a new tag, what should that tag be?> Many of the points in this argument aren't being made against having some types of roundabouts mapped as a node, but rather are arguments against overloading tags that mean something else outside of Australia. Other arguments are saying that the current definition is poor. I can agree with these arguments, to a certain extent. (Although I think people arguing against overloading tags have a bigger campaign on their hands than just mini-roundabouts.) However, before we can get to them, we need to decide if this kind of roundabout is best represented by a node, or a loop. Then progress to what, if anything, the tag should be. Ian. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
