I’m in agreement with you that this is not the correct, widely accepted, way of 
mapping these intersections.

 

Ways should only split at the start of physical separations. Intersections of 
dual carriage ways should result in a # like pattern. Turn lanes without 
physical separation should be mapped using appropriate :lanes tags.

 

To give counterexamples of what I think are correctly mapped intersections:

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24256/153.02079

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24173/153.02469

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.23018/153.02236

 

 

From: Dian Ågesson <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 15:31
To: OSM Australian Talk List <[email protected]>
Subject: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

 

Hello,

I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with regarding 
the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I have previously 
mentioned this topic on the mailing list here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html 
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html,> 
.

To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual 
carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct.

Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new turn lane, 
then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a Box shape that I've 
seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at explaining: Burwood 
Hwy/Mountain Hwy <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8917929878> , Smith 
St/Dandenong Rd <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2951838115/history> , 
Burwood Hwy/Dorset Rd <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8925914559/history> , 
Princes Hwy/William Rd <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history> ) 
Additional highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no 
physical separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113685299/history> , Greville St N/Sturt St 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/976666655/history> , Glenleith St/Church St 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/75040109/history> ). This editor has been an 
extremely active contributor for many, many years: I found these examples by 
just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found intersection that was modelled 
this way, and checked the history to confirm the source.

I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481 
<https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111051481> ), and after some initial 
delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation 
<https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=206929&commented>  
since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and understanding in our 
interactions, and have made adjustments to their mapping style based on my 
feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a fundamental point of disagreement 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118038711> , and I don't believe 
further changeset discussions are going to be productive.

I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I would 
really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to the 
extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in similar areas 
isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my assessment of 
intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or of accuracy?

Kind Regards,
Dian.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Reply via email to