In Streetview it looks the same.
I see this of a typical case of willing to map too much.
By that I mean every turn (or shortcut) from one lane to all possible
others.
The crossing should look in its basic form like a #.
Is it needed to represent every lane as separate roads?
I don't think so.
Only when there is a real division in the form of a physical separation,
other then a simple white line, such as a sideway, traffic island,
arched surface, ..., additional trunks should be mapped.
For all other things tagging Lanes
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes> and Turning indications
per lane
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications_per_lane>
should be sufficient to map this crossing.
A lot of cleanup is needed here, starting with the 2 trunks 214506429
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/214506429> and 115952062
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115952062>
Regards,
Gerard.
Jakka wrote:
The middle intersection looks very wrong. Want to redesign it. There
for need to know if the aerial image on "Wallononmap" are still
corresponding with what is out there ? Or are there other images ?
The same with intersection north and south of it I need to connect
directly good on those also.
Check this in editor:
1)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.543085562147645/5.4872411965277195
Check a routeplanner
2)
https://www.mapcat.com/directions/car#map=18.9/50.54324/5.48770&route=50.54312,5.48745;50.54332,5.48772
check aerial image I want to work with. No Mapillary image yet.
3)
http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=5DB543FAA0BC7C61E053D0AFA49DE388#CTX=DDB
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
