I did something similar to this junction: http://osm.org/go/0EQSYTukM-- / http://binged.it/16jtNsx (note that the most detailed aerial photo is quite old and predates the guided busway - zoom out for more recent imagery)
primarily to get routing right. The current version reflects some combination of physical traffic islands (definitely necessary to get cycle / pedestrian routing correct) and "paint" islands. If there's a better way to represent this while keeping enough information to be able to route sensibly, how should it be done? Oliver On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com>wrote: > On 09/05/2013 12:56, Jason Cunningham wrote: > >> UK legislation is fairly clear that Traffic Islands (with or without >> hatched markings before are after) are not considered to create two >> carriagways. We're not mapping legislation, but nethertheless I wouldnt >> create two carriageways for a traffic island in a stretch of road... >> > > What do people think of this: > > http://osm.org/go/0EQSJEoZT-- (aerial: http://binged.it/10kuDNm ) > > and this: > > http://osm.org/go/eu6_VCkLp-- (aerial: http://binged.it/16js1Ye ) > > I was dubious when I first saw what someone (not me) had done in these two > locations. On the other hand, it is hard to represent properly how > pedestrians are intended navigate a junction if you don't represent the > islands, so I have warmed to it a bit. It does make rendering a street map > a mess, often with lots of apparently superfluous one way arrows and a > bulge, except at a very large scale. > > David > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb