James, Thanks for the feedback. This is of course not good. I will make sure we will be more careful with both the lane counts and the relations not getting broken! I apologize. Did you fix the relations? If not I will.
The case you highlighted - I agree this one would be just fine as a single node. The guidance I have been giving, based on previous discussion in this thread, was to only 'dualize' the intersection when the dual carriageway clearly continues past the intersection. Does that make sense? I will make sure we adhere to that guideline and not overcomplexify situations that don't require it from a ground trouth perspective. Martijn On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:47 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Martijn (and other telenav workers), > > I just happened to see some intersections in my area tweaked today. If > you're going to be changing the intersections, can you at least please > update the lane count on said ways if it's already been added at the same > time? I mean, if a way is on one side 4 lanes, and you split it into two > separate ways, odds are both of them are 2 lanes each. Yet, the lane count > on them is still "4", which can also play screwy with the routing engines. > > Also, can you please update any relations that are attached to the highways? > I'm going to bring up Changeset 18789658 as an example, which is the > intersection of US-22 Business, PA-48, & the Orange Belt in Monroeville, PA. > The two numbered routes were "broken" today (amazingly the Orange Belt > wasn't) with the change from a 1-point intersection to a 4-point > intersection. I personally think that a 1-point intersection was completely > justified for this intersection because of only two directions being divided > when exiting it. Anyways, US-22 Business now has a gap because of the "new" > ways for it, and PA-48 now doesn't end @ the intersection anymore because of > the divided highway from the North being extended outside the main > intersection. And, to be honest, I'm also toying with the idea of reverting > said changeset to repair the relations and make it a 1-point intersection > again, but wanted to bring it up here on the list first before doing that to > prevent an edit war. > > So, if you keep doing it that way, can you please keep the collateral damage > to a minimum when it comes to lane counts and highway relations? I would > really appreciate it when stuff like that was already tagged correctly > doesn't need to be fixed again. :) > > > -James (rickmastfan67) > > >> From: marti...@telenav.com >> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:42:53 -0600 >> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> CC: ste...@telenav.com; krist...@telenav.com; robe...@telenav.com; >> chr...@telenav.com >> Subject: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping > >> >> Hi all, >> >> Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we >> have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel >> represents the situation on the ground better than their original >> state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some >> feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we >> (as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these >> intersections. >> >> So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one >> or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection: >> >> >> https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e >> >> One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows: >> >> >> https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92 >> >> The main difference, and the source of some feedback we have received >> over the past few days, is that the dual carriageway roads are >> straightened out, creating multiple intersection nodes (4 in this >> case) instead of the original single intersection node that connects >> all the incoming and outgoing ways. That technique turns out to yield >> more reliable and correct routing and guidance ('keep left, turn >> right') through these intersections in our testing. But of course, >> that cannot dictate how we map as a community, so let's discuss. >> >> Some of the feedback we have received about these edits points to a >> statement on this wiki page: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#Braided_streets: 'It >> is a reasonable and well-used technique to bring the ways of dual >> carriageways back to a single point at intersections to facilitate and >> simplify the mapping of control devices and turn restrictions.' In my >> mapping across the US, my personal experience has been that this >> technique is in fact used, but the 'after' technique with straightened >> out ways is actually much more common. I personally prefer that >> technique as well - I think it is more pleasing to the eye, represents >> what is on the ground better, and is and easier to read. So my feeling >> was that this mapping practice would not be disputed. It turns out I >> was wrong, so I want to see what the consensus is on mapping >> intersections of this type - or perhaps there is none and we can work >> together to get there? >> >> Thanks, >> Martijn >> -- >> Martijn van Exel >> OSM data specialist >> Telenav >> http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel >> http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- -- Martijn van Exel OSM data specialist Telenav http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us