On 15/11/21 22:14, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Splitting makes the data more complicated than it needs to be, and doesn't add more value or accuracy compared to simply tagging the traffic island as a node. One with a gap for pedestrians gets tagged as crossing:island=yes, without a crossing maybe traffic_calming=island, or some other tag.
I didn't recall seeing this type of tagging, so I took another sample. This time 50 single carriageway roundabouts without split flares in BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL. After looking at 200 roundabouts I couldn't find any that have used traffic_calming=island to model the split. I think that we have a consensus that if you do model a roundabout's flares you split the ways, rather than tagging the island. What we don't seem to have is a consensus on what constitutes a "small" roundabout that doesn't need to have the flares modelled.
What I'd like to hear is from those who do split, is why? Is it just because you're trying to follow the documented rules, or is there a reason for splitting being better? Ideally we'd document the community preferred approach along with the reasons for.
Personally I spilt the ways to model the flares. The reason I do this is because I started mapping in CBR and that's how they are mapped here. I assume that is the style here because our roundabouts are larger than you find in other cities.
I wouldn't have thought of using traffic_calming=island as this makes me picture this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Trafficcalming-island.jpg type of thing. However, the wiki does suggest you can use it to model the roundabouts islands.
The wiki also has an example of how to map a roundabout which shows the ways split. There was also a JOSM plugin that semi-automated the mapping of a roundabout and it also split the ways for you.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
