Some of them like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13031072 where the no-u-turn restriction is on the same way don't make sense, and it's fair to ask for further information about why it was added, and if that's not provided then I think it's fine to remove.
I admit that while I'd much prefer routers to fix their problems I've been given so much bad routing due to u-turns at intersections that I've been mapping some. I think microsoft mapped a lot, so it's common in the database. I think at this point we might as well make an exception and allow these traffic light no-u-turns to be mapped. In the roundabout case, that's why I dislike splitting the way into two oneway. It would be better to have a single way and just tag it as a traffic island or hard/soft median on that section or something. Nonetheless some mappers do it this way and in that case, the no-u-turn restriction is probably required. On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 09:46, Little Maps <[email protected]> wrote: > If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully > build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” vs > “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it were, > heaps of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor that > the edits are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, they > are clearly happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have different > interests and pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and > interesting, even if it is frustrating at times. It’s a big map. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
