James — Thanks. This means that at the very least we need to check on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis if these turns are allowed or not.
Just as a data point, Google maps won’t let you make that turn either [1]. That’s not to argue that I am right in any way, just to show that false assumptions regarding turns are made outside of OSM. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.586229,-80.0446722/40.586796,-80.0438587/@40.5879274,-80.0482634,17.23z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0 <https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.586229,-80.0446722/40.586796,-80.0438587/@40.5879274,-80.0482634,17.23z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0> > On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:31 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the > right turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane. The slip lane > being closed when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary. They were using > it as a temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they > were replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the > other side of the intersection. > > -James > From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> > Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM > To: James Mast > Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org; OSM US > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions > > James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your > example so I took a peek at <<AHEM>> google street view. What I see there is > that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to > traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the > intersection? Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, > based on the info I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no > restriction would be necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because > of <<ahem>> above.) > > I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when > there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not > adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am > looking for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to > traffic regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid > but also a boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add > these if there is no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value > to adding them. > > I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and > I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well. > > Martijn > >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com >> <mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it >> still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection? It might be if >> you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there. >> >> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this >> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false >> information to the OSM database. While there is a 'slip' lane for right >> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying >> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection. So, [3] >> would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to >> be added here. >> >> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in >> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it. So, I can >> see why Andrew was upset about this. >> >> -James >> >> [1] >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552 >> >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552> >> [2] >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431 >> >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431> >> [3] >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457 >> >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614,-80.04461;40.58680,-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457> >> From: Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com <mailto:scr...@gmail.com>> >> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM >> To: talk...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk...@openstreetmap.org> >> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions >> >> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> > … the engine >> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn >> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need >> > these restrictions to be explicit in the data. >> >> but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix >> Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not* >> there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map. >> >> I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't >> belong in OSM. >> >> Stewart >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk...@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk...@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca>
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
