I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of the cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly established for over a decade.
To quote the wiki ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways ): A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows. The concept of what constitutes "physical separation" has been very firmly established. And simply paint on the road surface isn't it. There are plenty of tags available to record information about legal restrictions imposed by paint. Splitting the way is not one of them. Also, you somehow seem to be under the misconception that OSM (name notwithstanding) is a *map*. It's not. It's a database with geospatial information. When you are editing OSM, you are not drawing a map. You are recording geospatial information, abstracted by established tagging patterns. Some of the data consumers of that information, after picking, choosing, and interpreting while render a map derived from that information. Cheers, Thorsten -----Original Message----- From: cleary <o...@97k.com> Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 09:38 To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation" Hello again Dian If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I would suggest you are physically separated. It does not have to be a concrete barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a police officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not really constitute a physical separation of ways. The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation". Undoubtedly an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes "physical separation". If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else, such as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum height, then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding principles when considering any change to the guideline. In regard to the statement that '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn as a separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded". Every map involves decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we mapped every insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it would be useless. We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest. However in some instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The creators of maps are always exercising judgement in what is included or omitted. Not every physical item in the world, including every strip of paint, "demands" to be mapped. On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hi Cleary, > > Two points: > > Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s > legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being > unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I > can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the > car next to me. > > Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor > standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes > past a certain point. The method you’re describing would demand each > lane to be drawn as a separate highway. > > Dian > > > > On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote: > >> >> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or >> imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law >> then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a >> physical barrier that cannot be traversed. >> >> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This >> query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, >>> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. >>> >>> “ ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of >>> the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.” >>> >>> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth >>> while abiding by the above. I will try to describe the situation as >>> best I can without being able to resort to a sketch: >>> >>> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & >>> Tonkin >>> Highways) >>> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with >>> the >>> 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) >>> - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 >>> through >>> lanes) >>> - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the >>> traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite >>> close – hundreds of metres) >>> - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the >>> 2 continuing lanes – right to the next intersection >>> - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn >>> right at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally >>> cross the solid white line >>> >>> This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a >>> 2 lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point. >>> >>> Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the >>> next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be >>> mapped so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the >>> next intersection? >>> >>> Ian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
