Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Here's one option: http://osm.org/go/euu1t7NMP-- The dual carriageway (Shenley Road) is brought to a point (node) at the intersection. Even if it's currently the only way, it should be noted that it has the unfortunate effect of mangling the geometry; there's no slight-right turn followed by a slight-left turn when driving straight through. Just that whenever such cases are used as an example, new editors easily pick the method as an example for any intersection of dual carriageway roads, and start bringing the carriageways to a single point at any normal large intersection. Takes anything from a few weeks to some months before there's the first wiki dispute on what was the intent of said example, or how the regular, long ago written examples are wrong. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
IMO tagging a mini - no matter how large it is - as a way would be inconsistent with our way we map (most?) features. When mapping a street, we draw the way where one can drive/go. On a normal roundabout you can not drive in the middle, that's why we map it as circle. We agreed on junction=roundabout on a node just for the sake of simplicity, because otherwise people who don't want to draw circles tag them with mini_roundabout and our data quality suffers. Contrary on a mini-roundabout you can drive in the middle (ignoring any legal restrictions now), that's why we don't draw a loop but just a junction and add the tag highway=mini_roundabout to the junction node. Drawing it as a loop would be imo inconsistent. If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. Martin 2012/6/6 Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com: I was away most of last month, and missed most of the discussion of mini and normal roundabouts. However, looking at the wiki now, from what I can tell the differences now are -Roundabouts can be mapped as a way or node (though way is preferred), mini roundabouts only as a node -Roundabouts cannot be traversable, mini-roundabouts must be So what do I do about a roundabout that has been mapped out as a way, but is traversable? This weekend I ran across a couple of new (to me) traversable roundabouts on a street that used to have normal intersections. When I checked to see if they have been updated, they have been mapped as roundabout ways. However, both these roundabouts are fully traversable, in fact I saw a bus go across one. How should this be tagged? I don't particularly want to remove the mapped way to tag as a node - if it wasn't mapped as a way and was a normal capped roundabout I'd probably be mapping it as a way myself. Can we use a way marked as mini-roundabout? Photo of one of these here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21448164/IMG_0169C.jpg Or another idea - since there are many mini-roundabouts tagged that aren't really, so the tag is quite polluted at this time, and the only big difference I can see now is if it is traversable or not, maybe we should ignore mini-roundabout all together, just use roundabout and traversable=yes/no. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: IMO tagging a mini - no matter how large it is - as a way would be inconsistent with our way we map (most?) features. When mapping a street, we draw the way where one can drive/go. On a normal roundabout you can not drive in the middle, that's why we map it as circle. We agreed on junction=roundabout on a node just for the sake of simplicity, because otherwise people who don't want to draw circles tag them with mini_roundabout and our data quality suffers. Contrary on a mini-roundabout you can drive in the middle (ignoring any legal restrictions now), that's why we don't draw a loop but just a junction and add the tag highway=mini_roundabout to the junction node. Drawing it as a loop would be imo inconsistent. If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. Would there be any problem in drawing normal roundabout way + mini area for the center area (as an optional alternative to the node only approach)? ...Enforcing node only for mini_roundabout seems too restrictive (The same problem exists with quite many tags actually, and then somebody fixes those because wiki says that it must be of certain object type regardless of whether the more physical approach makes more sense or no). -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Am 06.06.2012 09:13, schrieb Martin Vonwald: IMO tagging a mini - no matter how large it is - as a way would be inconsistent with our way we map (most?) features. -1 When mapping a street, we draw the way where one can drive/go. On a normal roundabout you can not drive in the middle, that's why we map it as circle. We agreed on junction=roundabout on a node just for the sake of simplicity, because otherwise people who don't want to draw circles tag them with mini_roundabout and our data quality suffers. Contrary on a mini-roundabout you can drive in the middle (ignoring any legal restrictions now), that's why we don't draw a loop but just a junction and add the tag highway=mini_roundabout to the junction node. Drawing it as a loop would be imo inconsistent. If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. For highway=pedestrian, at platforms and many other things we allow to add area=yes to a feature to turn a circular way (ring) to a circular area (filled area, polygon). If - and that's in fact more or less the result of the discussions we had in the last days - the difference between mini roundabouts and roundabouts is the traversability of the center part, I would say, mapping a mini roundabout as a way would in theory be sufficient without area=yes, because area=yes would be implied. On the other hand I would propose to add area=yes to avoid confusion both at data consumer side as well as on mapper side (yes, they MEANT it to be a mini roundabout, I guess, because they knew it's an area without obstacle in the middle). regards Peter Martin 2012/6/6 Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com: I was away most of last month, and missed most of the discussion of mini and normal roundabouts. However, looking at the wiki now, from what I can tell the differences now are -Roundabouts can be mapped as a way or node (though way is preferred), mini roundabouts only as a node -Roundabouts cannot be traversable, mini-roundabouts must be So what do I do about a roundabout that has been mapped out as a way, but is traversable? This weekend I ran across a couple of new (to me) traversable roundabouts on a street that used to have normal intersections. When I checked to see if they have been updated, they have been mapped as roundabout ways. However, both these roundabouts are fully traversable, in fact I saw a bus go across one. How should this be tagged? I don't particularly want to remove the mapped way to tag as a node - if it wasn't mapped as a way and was a normal capped roundabout I'd probably be mapping it as a way myself. Can we use a way marked as mini-roundabout? Photo of one of these here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21448164/IMG_0169C.jpg Or another idea - since there are many mini-roundabouts tagged that aren't really, so the tag is quite polluted at this time, and the only big difference I can see now is if it is traversable or not, maybe we should ignore mini-roundabout all together, just use roundabout and traversable=yes/no. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On 06/06/2012 09:13, Martin Vonwald wrote: If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. Martin How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and (IMHO) non-controversial; routing would not be affected (no need to route over areas) and renderers can draw a bigger blob. Problem solved, simples. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
For highway=pedestrian, at platforms and many other things we allow to add area=yes to a feature to turn a circular way (ring) to a circular area (filled area, polygon). If - and that's in fact more or less the result of the discussions we had in the last days - the difference between mini roundabouts and roundabouts is the traversability of the center part, I would say, mapping a mini roundabout as a way would in theory be sufficient without area=yes, because area=yes would be implied. On the other hand I would propose to add area=yes to avoid confusion both at data consumer side as well as on mapper side (yes, they MEANT it to be a mini roundabout, I guess, because they knew it's an area without obstacle in the middle). +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and (IMHO) non-controversial; routing would not be affected (no need to route over areas) and renderers can draw a bigger blob. Problem solved, simples. +1 (as to Peter) I would prefer this method - but would allow the mini-roundabout-tag on areas for compatibility reasons - may the latter rest upon 'already mapped' or 'stubborn resistance'. ;-) Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
2012/6/6 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de For highway=pedestrian, at platforms and many other things we allow to add area=yes to a feature to turn a circular way (ring) to a circular area (filled area, polygon). If - and that's in fact more or less the result of the discussions we had in the last days - the difference between mini roundabouts and roundabouts is the traversability of the center part, I would say, mapping a mini roundabout as a way would in theory be sufficient without area=yes, because area=yes would be implied. On the other hand I would propose to add area=yes to avoid confusion both at data consumer side as well as on mapper side (yes, they MEANT it to be a mini roundabout, I guess, because they knew it's an area without obstacle in the middle). +1 +1 for me too. Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On 06/06/12 13:06, Georg Feddern wrote: How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and (IMHO) non-controversial; routing would not be affected (no need to route over areas) and renderers can draw a bigger blob. Problem solved, simples. I would use radius not diameter. +1 (as to Peter) I would prefer this method - but would allow the mini-roundabout-tag on areas for compatibility reasons - may the latter rest upon 'already mapped' or 'stubborn resistance'. ;-) +1 IMOH the only problem I see is the key highway= . Why not changes this to junction=mini_roundabout and draw a circle with highway=primary/secondary... and add area=yes. A side affect would be that all minis will be rechecked. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:32:59 Colin Smale wrote: On 06/06/2012 09:13, Martin Vonwald wrote: If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. Martin How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and (IMHO) non-controversial; routing would not be affected (no need to route over areas) and renderers can draw a bigger blob. Problem solved, simples. If we do this I would really love to see the tag as radius=* instead of diameter=*. Thank you, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: On the other hand I would propose to add area=yes to avoid confusion both at data consumer side as well as on mapper side (yes, they MEANT it to be a mini roundabout, I guess, because they knew it's an area without obstacle in the middle). +1 +1 for me too. I'm confused now. You mean an area=yes on a node tagged as mini_roundabout ? -1 for area=yes for something that is traversable only for wide vehicles -1 for area=yes on nodes. -1 for circles with area=yes and implied oneway restriction. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Diameter is more universally understood by the layman than radius. Radius is normally only used by engineers, scientists and mathematicians. Plus it keeps us from having to map fractions. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/06/2012 13:07 Andrew Errington wrote: On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:32:59 Colin Smale wrote: On 06/06/2012 09:13, Martin Vonwald wrote: If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. Martin How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and (IMHO) non-controversial; routing would not be affected (no need to route over areas) and renderers can draw a bigger blob. Problem solved, simples. If we do this I would really love to see the tag as radius=* instead of diameter=*. Thank you, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Concerning diameter/radius. What if the mini-roundabout isn't round? 2012/6/6 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: Diameter is more universally understood by the layman than radius. Radius is normally only used by engineers, scientists and mathematicians. Plus it keeps us from having to map fractions. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/06/2012 13:07 Andrew Errington wrote: On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:32:59 Colin Smale wrote: On 06/06/2012 09:13, Martin Vonwald wrote: If you want to specify the dimension of the mini-roundabout I think it would be sufficient to specify the width of the approaching roads. Martin How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and (IMHO) non-controversial; routing would not be affected (no need to route over areas) and renderers can draw a bigger blob. Problem solved, simples. If we do this I would really love to see the tag as radius=* instead of diameter=*. Thank you, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:21:56 Philip Barnes wrote: Diameter is more universally understood by the layman than radius. You and I both seem to understand it. Let's not underestimate the ability of someone we haven't met. Radius is normally only used by engineers, scientists and mathematicians. ...which is why it's a better choice. Plus it keeps us from having to map fractions. A diameter could have a fractional part, although we would use a decimal point. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:25:08 Tobias Johansson wrote: Concerning diameter/radius. What if the mini-roundabout isn't round? It is. It is a perfect circle on a frictionless plane. But if it's not, use the minor radius, then calculations can be done for the worst case (large vehicle, smallest angle turn). Besides, no-one is going to go out with a tape measure. It's going to be eyeballed, or estimated from an aerial photo. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
2012/6/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: Actually you have a very valid point: I'm confused now. You mean an area=yes on a node tagged as mini_roundabout ? -1 for area=yes for something that is traversable only for wide vehicles No, not this one. I have no problem with this. -1 for area=yes on nodes. No, this one neither. You misunderstood Simone imo: he wanted to draw a circle and add area=yes. At least I think so. -1 for circles with area=yes and implied oneway restriction. Here it is. As far as I know, area=yes means that the feature spans over the whole area. But this is a contradiction with the oneway restriction. So I'm still not sure, that it is a good idea to use anything than a node for mini-roundabout. Why isn't it sufficient to use a node and simply add a tag (if really necessary) to specify the dimension? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Am 06.06.2012 14:09, schrieb Pieren: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: On the other hand I would propose to add area=yes to avoid confusion both at data consumer side as well as on mapper side (yes, they MEANT it to be a mini roundabout, I guess, because they knew it's an area without obstacle in the middle). +1 +1 for me too. I'm confused now. You mean an area=yes on a node tagged as mini_roundabout ? It is obvious, that you did not cite Peters first sentence - but it is mandatory to read it in context, to avoid your confusion. ;-) -1 for area=yes for something that is traversable only for wide vehicles Uhmm, it is still traversable physically - it is just only allowed for wide vehicles. Like painted lines/areas on dual carriageways ... -1 for area=yes on nodes. +1 -1 for circles with area=yes and implied oneway restriction. I think I understand your point here - but the simple node still has a oneway restriction too. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
I missed the point that the miniroundabout would be drawn as a circle (area). Then why talking about tagging radius/diameter when you have the information in the geometry ? I think it is micromapping like drawing normal highways with rectangles instead of lines. It's experimental and not very popular. They should use a new set of tags for that and keep the single node for the compatibility. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Am 06.06.2012, 14:07 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: IMOH the only problem I see is the key highway= . Why not changes this to junction=mini_roundabout and draw a circle with highway=primary/secondary... and add area=yes. A side affect would be that all minis will be rechecked. fly +1, Why use different keys for the same thing? If you want, area=yes can be implied to new junction=mini_roundabout. I say: +0 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Am 06.06.2012 14:09, schrieb Pieren: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Simone Saviolosimone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: On the other hand I would propose to add area=yes to avoid confusion both at data consumer side as well as on mapper side (yes, they MEANT it to be a mini roundabout, I guess, because they knew it's an area without obstacle in the middle). +1 +1 for me too. I'm confused now. You mean an area=yes on a node tagged as mini_roundabout ? no! I added the idea of area=yes for mini_roundabouts tagged as a circular way. A node tagged as mini_roundabout is not touched by this idea. -1 for area=yes for something that is traversable only for wide vehicles well it is traverable (in the sense of being able to traverse) by all vehicles. That this is not allowed for all vehicles may be adressed out of the roundabout-property by any application using it. This is a malus only for applications that 1) are able to do routing across areas (most router don't do that yet afaik) and 2) don't know about the roundabout issue to handle it separately -1 for area=yes on nodes. sure, didn't propose that (at least didn't intend to propose it) -1 for circles with area=yes and implied oneway restriction. This is probably a valid point, and yes; but it's again only a contradiction for routing, and again only under the two assumptions from above. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Mini roundabouts are normally too small to be anything but round. I realise that we would use decimal s rather than fractions. But in most cases a guestimate of diameter in metres will do. Most will be either 1, 2 or 3 metres, using radius there will be a lot that are radius of 0.5m. And I refuse to try measuring the ones on the A53 with a tape measure ;) Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/06/2012 13:36 Andrew Errington wrote: On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:21:56 Philip Barnes wrote: Diameter is more universally understood by the layman than radius. You and I both seem to understand it. Let's not underestimate the ability of someone we haven't met. Radius is normally only used by engineers, scientists and mathematicians. ...which is why it's a better choice. Plus it keeps us from having to map fractions. A diameter could have a fractional part, although we would use a decimal point. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:06:10 Philip Barnes wrote: Mini roundabouts are normally too small to be anything but round. I realise that we would use decimal s rather than fractions. But in most cases a guestimate of diameter in metres will do. Most will be either 1, 2 or 3 metres, using radius there will be a lot that are radius of 0.5m. A vehicle is about 2m wide, so the smallest mini roundabout (a regular two-way, two lane road with a dot painted in the middle) would have a radius of 2m. And I refuse to try measuring the ones on the A53 with a tape measure ;) I'll hold one end for you? Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On 6/6/12 9:06 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: Mini roundabouts are normally too small to be anything but round. I realise that we would use decimal s rather than fractions. But in most cases a guestimate of diameter in metres will do. Most will be either 1, 2 or 3 metres, using radius there will be a lot that are radius of 0.5m. cars are typically 2m wide or nearly so. a 1m diameter roundabout would be for bicycles and pedestrians, i should think. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
There are lots that have 2m diameter, 1m radius, such as this pair in Loggerheads http://goo.gl/NknP. Have seen some smaller but can't place any from memory. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/06/2012 14:26 Richard Welty wrote: On 6/6/12 9:06 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: Mini roundabouts are normally too small to be anything but round. I realise that we would use decimal s rather than fractions. But in most cases a guestimate of diameter in metres will do. Most will be either 1, 2 or 3 metres, using radius there will be a lot that are radius of 0.5m. cars are typically 2m wide or nearly so. a 1m diameter roundabout would be for bicycles and pedestrians, i should think. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
2012/6/6 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: There are lots that have 2m diameter, 1m radius, such as this pair in Loggerheads http://goo.gl/NknP. ;-) http://goo.gl/NknP – this URL has been disabled. Note that goo.gl short URLs may be disabled for spam, security or legal reasons. Suggestions: Return to the previous page. Try searching to find what you're looking for. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On 6/6/12 10:03 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: There are lots that have 2m diameter, 1m radius, such as this pair in Loggerheads http://goo.gl/NknP. Have seen some smaller but can't place any from memory. *http://goo.gl/NknP*-- this URL has been disabled. i don't understand how a 2m or smaller diameter entity can qualify as a mini-roundabout for motorized vehicular traffic (at least, the 4 wheel kind.) or are we talking about 2 different diameters here? the outer diameter of the circle vs the diameter of the usually untraveled center? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
My mistake, http://goo.gl/maps/NknP Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/06/2012 15:15 Richard Welty wrote: On 6/6/12 10:03 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: There are lots that have 2m diameter, 1m radius, such as this pair in Loggerheads http://goo.gl/NknP. Have seen some smaller but can't place any from memory. http://goo.gl/NknP – this URL has been disabled. i don't understand how a 2m or smaller diameter entity can qualify as a mini-roundabout for motorized vehicular traffic (at least, the 4 wheel kind.) or are we talking about 2 different diameters here? the outer diameter of the circle vs the diameter of the usually untraveled center? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Tried measuring the radius on those mini's. Got approx 6-8m? 2012/6/6 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: My mistake, http://goo.gl/maps/NknP Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/06/2012 15:15 Richard Welty wrote: On 6/6/12 10:03 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: There are lots that have 2m diameter, 1m radius, such as this pair in Loggerheads http://goo.gl/NknP. Have seen some smaller but can't place any from memory. http://goo.gl/NknP – this URL has been disabled. i don't understand how a 2m or smaller diameter entity can qualify as a mini-roundabout for motorized vehicular traffic (at least, the 4 wheel kind.) or are we talking about 2 different diameters here? the outer diameter of the circle vs the diameter of the usually untraveled center? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On 6/6/12 10:26 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: My mistake, http://goo.gl/maps/NknP ah, so you are talking about diameter of the center usually not traversed section. i suspect that using diameter to mean ID will be error prone as some (many?) will assume it means the OD of the mini-roundabout. maybe diameter:outer=20m diameter:inner=1m (or radius if you prefer. i don't actually care on that point. i do a lot of technical car stuff and diameter is used at least as frequently as radius, probably more than radius, as radius is frequently much harder to measure as the center of many things can't be casually determined.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: There are lots that have 2m diameter, 1m radius, such as this pair in Loggerheads http://goo.gl/NknP. Have seen some smaller but can't place any from memory. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/06/2012 14:26 Richard Welty wrote: On 6/6/12 9:06 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: Mini roundabouts are normally too small to be anything but round. I realise that we would use decimal s rather than fractions. But in most cases a guestimate of diameter in metres will do. Most will be either 1, 2 or 3 metres, using radius there will be a lot that are radius of 0.5m. cars are typically 2m wide or nearly so. a 1m diameter roundabout would be for bicycles and pedestrians, i should think. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It sounds like we have some people interpreting radius to mean the radius of the center island only, and some interpreting it to be the radius of island plus ways. If the radius of the combined radius and ways is only half a meter, then we are discussing a footpath with a dot painted in the center. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
2012/6/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: I'm confused now. You mean an area=yes on a node tagged as mini_roundabout ? I understood this was about area=yes on a mini_roundabout tagged on a polygon (closed way). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: So I'm still not sure, that it is a good idea to use anything than a node for mini-roundabout. Why isn't it sufficient to use a node and simply add a tag (if really necessary) to specify the dimension? For small ones, node seems just fine. However, for those few larger minis it would be nice to be able to satisfy two goal: - Represent the actual roundabout looking largish shape a small car driver will encounter when driving into one identically to a normal roundabout with obstacle (or nearly identically). ...And give proper roundabout driving guidance too. - Somehow indicate the mini_roundabout connectivities for large vehicle case. Both single node and physical way approaches require some preprocessing in small car or large vehicle case. It seems a tradeoff on which use case the preprocessing burden is placed. ...I think that the extra burden that the single node approach puts for the small car preprocessing is not justified, considering how easily the large vehicle preprocessing can be realized if there would be circular ways with either traversible tag or mini_roundabout area connected to it. I repeat, I'm talking about a _large_ mini_roundabout here, not some 2m one people seem to talk in the other mails of this thread which has larger in the subject :-). -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com Can we use a way marked as mini-roundabout? Photo of one of these here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21448164/IMG_0169C.jpg I would map that as a mini-roundabout node, since the center median doesn't pose a navigation risk. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: How about diameter=15 on the mini-roundabout node? This is factually correct, verifiable on the ground and (IMHO) non-controversial; routing would not be affected (no need to route over areas) and renderers can draw a bigger blob. Problem solved, simples. I'm liking this idea. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
I propose that the radius would be from the centre of the mini-roundabout to the centreline of the road around it. And to the previous poster who said that diameter would be better as it is hard to estimate the centre, I agree in general, but in this case we specify precisely where the centre is (it's the lat/lon of the node). I assert that centre + radius is the correct way to define this. Best wishes, Andrew On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 6/6/12 10:03 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: There are lots that have 2m diameter, 1m radius, such as this pair in Loggerheads http://goo.gl/NknP. Have seen some smaller but can't place any from memory. http://goo.gl/NknP – this URL has been disabled. i don't understand how a 2m or smaller diameter entity can qualify as a mini-roundabout for motorized vehicular traffic (at least, the 4 wheel kind.) or are we talking about 2 different diameters here? the outer diameter of the circle vs the diameter of the usually untraveled center? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: IMO tagging a mini - no matter how large it is - as a way would be inconsistent with our way we map (most?) features. When mapping a street, we draw the way where one can drive/go. Well, there are numerous intersections which are mapped as ways, not as nodes. As mentioned before (with respect to the Magic Roundabout, but it occurs in many other places), what is one supposed to do when there is a mini-roundabout at the intersection of a dual carriageway? Intersections of dual carriageways are generally mapped as ways, not nodes. Contrary on a mini-roundabout you can drive in the middle (ignoring any legal restrictions now), that's why we don't draw a loop but just a junction and add the tag highway=mini_roundabout to the junction node. Drawing it as a loop would be imo inconsistent. http://osm.org/go/ZDdzZWx4s-- That intersection is drawn as a square, but in reality you can drive in the middle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: As mentioned before (with respect to the Magic Roundabout, but it occurs in many other places), what is one supposed to do when there is a mini-roundabout at the intersection of a dual carriageway? Here's one option: http://osm.org/go/euu1t7NMP-- The dual carriageway (Shenley Road) is brought to a point (node) at the intersection. Is this the way it's supposed to be done? It seems to be the only way to properly use a mini-roundabout tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
