Re: [Talk-us] The to way does not start or end at a via node.

2015-01-31 Thread Eric H. Christensen
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 06:30:37PM +, Harald Kliems wrote:
 I think I figured it out. It's the no-U-turn relations (4286903 and
 4286904). Instead of having the same way as from and to, they reference
 a segment further down the road as their to. Probably that was caused by
 someone splitting the ways near the intersection. I haven't made any edits,
 as I can't be sure where the no-U-turn relations should be. But let me know
 if you need help fixing it, Eric.

I'm not sure I understand.  Please go ahead and fix it if you can see what's 
happening there.


FWIW, any changes there were likely made by me using iD.

--Eric

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] The to way does not start or end at a via node.

2015-01-31 Thread Harald Kliems
Hi Eric:
happy to fix if you can tell me where to put the no-U-turn restrictions.
I'm seeing nine or so of them just for that intersection, which makes me
wonder if all of them are necessary anyway -- are they actually signed,
especially the ones at the two turn lanes?
 Harald.

On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 7:41:01 PM Eric H. Christensen 
e...@christensenplace.us wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 06:30:37PM +, Harald Kliems wrote:
  I think I figured it out. It's the no-U-turn relations (4286903 and
  4286904). Instead of having the same way as from and to, they
 reference
  a segment further down the road as their to. Probably that was caused
 by
  someone splitting the ways near the intersection. I haven't made any
 edits,
  as I can't be sure where the no-U-turn relations should be. But let me
 know
  if you need help fixing it, Eric.

 I'm not sure I understand.  Please go ahead and fix it if you can see
 what's happening there.


 FWIW, any changes there were likely made by me using iD.

 --Eric

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us