Yeah, Ian is right if anyone did that in Ontario they'd get pulled over by the cops or flipped off by other drivers. Very unsafe practice to do. A turning lane/ramp is there for a reason.
Also martjin in Ottawa, especially downtown there are always signs to restrict turns between peak hours: 5:30-9:30 and 3:30-5:30 monday to friday. These are there for a reason(so people dont use roads to sneak around traffic and butt in line) please dont remove these On Mar 26, 2017 2:05 AM, "Ian Bruseker" <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew, > > I'm sorry to butt in here, I'm normally just a lurker and occasional > editor of my local bit of the world in OSM, but your comment on the right > hand turn restriction "at least in BC" really jumped out at me. I've seen > a number of times in my driving life someone do exactly what you are > describing, turning right at the actual intersection of two roads, rather > than the turning lane that came a little earlier, and every time they have > had BC plates. I live in Alberta, so I just shrugged it off as "they're > tourists, they just realized they missed their turn, whatever". :-) But > based on your comment, maybe this is a "BC thing" and you all do it. ;-) > > It's always seemed weird to me to see it (but like I said, "tourists, > whatever"), and seems like a really unsafe and really should be illegal > practice. Imagine this scenario: driver A is traveling down Wilfert, as > from your map, and appears to be headed straight through the intersection. > Driver B behind them takes the right-turn linking lane to get to Island > Highway. Driver A suddenly decides they need to go right, so they turn at > the intersection proper. Driver B, having seen the light was green for > those going straight on Wilfert, presumes (always a bad idea, but hear me > out) that no car could possibly be coming across their path and drives > through the right lane and takes the corner. Then BOOM, driver A's car is > there out of nowhere because he took the later option to turn right. > Surely that must be illegal because it is so unsafe. Not to mention driver > C behind both of them also expects driver A to go straight because driver A > has already passed the turning lane, so doesn't expect drive A to suddenly > decelerate for the turn (this is how I have come to be close enough to a > car to see its BC plates, as I slam on the brakes to avoid hitting them). > > So I did a quick google. I am not, really really not, a lawyer, but my > amateur reading of 151(e), as found here: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/ > document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section151 , "when approaching an > intersection intending to turn right must drive the vehicle in the lane > nearest to the right hand side of the roadway", my take on the wording > "must" drive, and lane "nearest" to the right, tells me that the linking > lane is the only one that it is legal to make a right turn from. Also, > section 165(4) ( http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/ > 96318_05#section165 ) says "If at an intersection there is a traffic > control device indicating the course to be travelled by vehicles turning at > the intersection, a driver must turn a vehicle at the intersection in the > manner directed by the traffic control device.", and in the definitions > section, it defines a traffic control device as "a sign, signal, line, > meter, marking, space, barrier or device". Based on the satellite imagery > of that intersection (never actually been there myself), it sure looks like > there are "lines" and "spaces" and possibly even a concrete island > "barrier" (imagery isn't that detailed, but sure looks like it) on the road > that make it clear in where there is a place to turn right. Also again > with the word "must" rather than something less imperative like "may" or > "could". So based on my reading, it's not that the turn is legal unless > otherwise indicated, as you say, but rather that it is illegal unless > otherwise indicated to turn at exactly the spot marked, because you "must" > follow the traffic control device indications, which is more than just > signs, and those devices are indicating that you "must" take the linking > lane. > > I totally accept that I'm being a major buttinsky here and probably coming > off like a huge know-it-all, and I am SO sorry about that, but, given that > whatever decision is made about whether this is right or not will live on > in the map, I totally agree with what I think the spirit of what you're > saying, which is "it needs to be correct". I just think that the "correct" > thing is that you can't actually legally turn at that spot, just as that > turn restriction edit indicates. If you got that far, go straight and find > another way to your destination, or turn right and expect a ticket or an > accident to happen. Any lawyers or police officers on this list? Their > opinions are worth WAY more than mine. :-) Again, I am really really > sorry to butt in. I just like "correctness" in the map, as you clearly > do. I totally agree with the other half of your email, that having > on-the-ground work killed by bad imagery traces is terrible. That's why I > only edit places where I have actually put my own two feet on the ground. > :-) > > Ian > > > On 25 March 2017 at 21:52, Andrew Lester <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I just discovered that user georges_telenav has been mapping turn >> restrictions in the Victoria, BC area. While some of them seem valid, there >> are hundreds of right-turn restrictions that can't possibly be based on >> either Mapillary or OpenStreetView as stated below, because these >> restrictions simply don't exist in reality. Here's an example: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7014602 >> >> I don't know about the rest of Canada, but at least in BC, this type of >> turn is perfectly legal unless otherwise indicated. Most drivers would use >> the link road and I'd expect routers should always prefer that, but there's >> nothing wrong if a driver gets past the link road and then changes their >> mind and wants to turn right. I can think of a handful of locations around >> town where there may be a sign explicitly forbidding this or at least >> implying it (e.g. "only left turn"), but the vast majority of the instances >> that this user has mapped do not have such signage. I'm in the process of >> cleaning all these up, but I'm worried there may be thousands more of these >> all over the place outside my immediate region. >> >> However, what I discovered while cleaning these up is even more >> disturbing. This is a region with significant growth, and there are >> frequent changes and additions to the road network. So far, I've discovered >> several cases where a reconfigured intersection or new road I had carefully >> mapped by GPS has been obliterated and replaced with an old configuration, >> apparently based on out-of-date aerial imagery. I take pride in mapping >> these changes as soon as possible after they're completed so end-users have >> the most reliable data (and I often mention this to people as one of the >> benefits of using OSM data in applications), so it's disappointing to see a >> distant armchair mapper destroy this careful on-the-ground work based on >> faulty assumptions and out-of-date imagery. I've also seen Telenav mappers >> adding residential roads that are clearly driveways and making edits >> without properly aligning aerial imagery, so I'm not exactly filled with >> confidence that they should be making widespread changes like they are. >> >> Martijn, I think Telenav needs to stop what they're doing and have a >> careful discussion with us about their plans and editing procedures before >> making any more edits. At least in my area, their edits have not only >> failed to improve the dataset, but in a number of cases has actually >> degraded it. Something needs to be done about this before things go too >> far. I already have a lot of cleanup work ahead of me, and I'd like to >> avoid this happening again in the future (at least by Telenav). >> >> Andrew >> Victoria, BC, Canada >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"James" <[email protected]> >> *To: *"John Marshall" <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *"talk-ca" <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:44:53 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions >> >> Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india >> contractors >> >> On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Make sense to me. Adding turn restrictions is something I don't want to >>> add. >>> Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to >>> help improve the map. >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Martijn van Exel [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53 >>>> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >>>> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map >>>> team are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal, >>>> and later on also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using >>>> OpenStreetView and Mapillary as sources. If you have any questions or >>>> concerns, please reach out to me and we will address it right away. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use >>>> the schema described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.o >>>> rg/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. We encounter a more complex mapping >>>> of conditional turn restrictions sometimes, where mappers have used day_on >>>> / day_off and hour_on / hour_off. This is uncommon and as far as I know not >>>> recommended for mapping time-restricted turn restrictions. If we encounter >>>> these, our proposal would be to remove these tags and if necessary replace >>>> them with the preferred scheme as described on the wiki. Opinions? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-ca mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-ca mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
