Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mike N]

On 7/4/2019 10:33 AM, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com wrote:

In the given example, turns were already permitted prior to the additional 
superfluous lanes being added. This creates confusion and unnecessary clutter 
and should not be encouraged. The intersection was fine before the addition of 
the highway links. The new links add nothing to the map other than clutter.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57344/-104.98491


  The links do improve turn-by-turn instructions, in the case of 
following a large vehicle and not being sure where to leave the main 
lane of traffic to make a left turn.But it's also possible that 
adding turn lanes and/or change:lanes could work (but I'm not familiar 
with change:lanes enough to know for sure).


   I think some areas are more likely to add a physical divider based 
on history of traffic flow and available funds.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Warin]

On 04/07/19 22:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 4. Jul 2019, at 11:49, Snusmumriken  wrote:

A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.


it doesn’t apply to many people though, for example pedestrians or emergency 
vehicles.


I have seen emergency vehicle cross physical barriers.

So by extension physical barriers should not be mapped. Which would be 
ridiculous.


The definition for a separate highway way is that it implies a separate 
carriageway. We’ve set it like this. IMHO it can hardly put into discussion at 
this point. If you want to map by a different definition, safest would be to 
use a different key.


The definition of 'separation' relies on the local definition?

If there is a need to map barriers that provide emergency use .. then perhaps 
OSM should tag that with a different key.

If there is a requirement to distinguish between barriers of (leagl) paint and 
those of some height .. use the height key for those of some height.
The tag already exists and would provide emergency vehicles with information - 
a highway patrol vehicle may not cross something with height=.2 but a police 
4WD rescue vehicle could.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4 lip 2019, 15:20 od snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:

> On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> I strongly disagree with this idea,
>> and multiple times changed such splits
>> back to one way.
>>
>
> I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth
> information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the
> database.
>
I (obviously) add all necessary turn
restrictions.

As result I remove incorrect claim
that road is dual carriageway
without information loss.

And why you consider moving to a 
standard tagging as a vandalism.

On topic of ground truth -
so far in all cases I did after spotting
incorrect mapping during a survey ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Snusmumriken]

On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:44 +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > I strongly disagree with this idea,
> > > and multiple times changed such splits
> > > back to one way.
> > 
> > I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground
> > truth
> > information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in
> > the
> > database.
> > 
> It is only vandalism if you loose information, if you are improving
> the mapping by changing such misleading information to correctly
> mapped turn lanes then it is improving the map.

Turn lane tagging is great and it certainly has its place osm mapping.
But in my experience of mapping it cannot replace the need to sometimes
split ways at a legal barrier to get a complete picture of how the
traffic can legally flow and thus provide a relevant routing
suggestion.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Lester Caine]

On 04/07/2019 15:24, Mike N wrote:
What if strictly following the rule of "no split ways unless physical 
divider" results in wildly incorrect turn-by-turn instructions?


I have the same problem with the right turn lane being removed from 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.11366/-1.94141 ... one can 
transition from the A46 to the A44 heading north WITHOUT having to stop 
for the roundabout. Because the only separation IS a crosshatch area the 
slip road has been removed but there is NOTHING to indicate that this 
slip road even exists by any other tagging! Unless someone has an 
'approved' way of adding it back?


Personally I think that micro-mapping complex junctions does require 
multiple ways even if the planned routes through a junction can be 
abused by taking the wrong path ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com]

If mappers are permitted to create numerous new ways based solely on a painted 
surface, intersections will become completely choked with lanes and will become 
unmanageable.

In the given example, turns were already permitted prior to the additional 
superfluous lanes being added. This creates confusion and unnecessary clutter 
and should not be encouraged. The intersection was fine before the addition of 
the highway links. The new links add nothing to the map other than clutter.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57344/-104.98491

- chachafish

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mike N]

On 7/4/2019 7:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I strongly disagree with this idea,
and multiple times changed such splits
back to one way.



  What if strictly following the rule of "no split ways unless physical 
divider" results in wildly incorrect turn-by-turn instructions?  For 
example -


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/34.93102/-82.32703

  Traveling SouthEast on Reid School Road and transitioning to Edwards 
Mill Road; there's no divider and this rule would remove the short 1-way 
link.   Turn by Turn instructions would change from "Bear slight 
right..."  to "turn right, then left at the stop sign".


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Philip Barnes]

On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I strongly disagree with this idea,
> > and multiple times changed such splits
> > back to one way.
> 
> I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth
> information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the
> database.
>
It is only vandalism if you loose information, if you are improving the mapping 
by changing such misleading information to correctly mapped turn lanes then it 
is improving the map.

Phil (trigpoint)



 
> > 
> > 
> > Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via
> > > talk
> > > wrote:
> > > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate
> > > > traffic
> > > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
> > > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between
> > > > said
> > > > flows."
> > > 
> > > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> > > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Snusmumriken]

On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this idea,
> and multiple times changed such splits
> back to one way.

I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth
information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the
database.

> 
> 
> Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via
> > talk
> > wrote:
> > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate
> > > traffic
> > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
> > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between
> > > said
> > > flows."
> > 
> > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Jul 2019, at 11:49, Snusmumriken  wrote:
> 
> A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.


it doesn’t apply to many people though, for example pedestrians or emergency 
vehicles.
The definition for a separate highway way is that it implies a separate 
carriageway. We’ve set it like this. IMHO it can hardly put into discussion at 
this point. If you want to map by a different definition, safest would be to 
use a different key.

Cheers, Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I strongly disagree with this idea,
and multiple times changed such splits
back to one way.

Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:

> On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk
> wrote:
>
>> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic
>> lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
>> (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said
>> flows."
>>
>
> A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03.07.19 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic
> lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g.,
> grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."

Yes, that's the standard operating procedure around here, albeit perhaps
with an added "easy" before movements. For example, if there's a small
raised curb with a little grass strip, it is still something you can
cross with your car or bike but it would be enough to make two separate
ways, whereas a simple line would not.

Way separation is not about the legal aspect ("do not cross this line")
but about the physical.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Snusmumriken]

On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk
wrote:
> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic
> lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
> (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said
> flows."

A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Marc Gemis]

I agree that in this case I would tolerate it, but is it still allowed
to turn from East Mineral avenue to the  North-South, unclassified
highway?
If not, one should add turn restrictions.

regards

m

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:11 PM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>
> On 03.07.2019 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
> > I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes 
> > unless "traffic flows are
> > physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which 
> > prevents movements between
> > said flows."
>
> Yes, I agree in general. Nearly all cases can be modelled with turn:lanes 
> (and maybe change:lanes).
>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496
>
> This case -- and the aerial image is necessary to understand it -- would be 
> one of the few
> exceptions where I would tolerate the current mapping of a separate lane for 
> the left turn.
> Otherwise a navigation engine would not be able to create the appropriate 
> turn instruction at the
> point where the lane forks off. A much more complicated data model would be 
> necessary.
>
> tom
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Paul Johnson]

Context is important.  If it's being controlled as a separate way (like an
angled deceleration or acceleration lane, or a flush median porkchop, or
the gore on a median bullnose), that's a good candidate for
placement=transition.

Keep in mind this gets super messy if you dont take context and intent into
account:  LAX becomes one, giant, continuous sheet of asphalt and concrete
instead of distinct runways, aprons and taxiways since all of the infields
are just part of the same paved surface painted green.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 15:11 Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes
> unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass,
> concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."
>
> In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links
> based solely on a painted surface?
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 03.07.2019 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are 
physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between 
said flows."


Yes, I agree in general. Nearly all cases can be modelled with turn:lanes (and 
maybe change:lanes).


https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496


This case -- and the aerial image is necessary to understand it -- would be one of the few 
exceptions where I would tolerate the current mapping of a separate lane for the left turn.
Otherwise a navigation engine would not be able to create the appropriate turn instruction at the 
point where the lane forks off. A much more complicated data model would be necessary.


tom

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I would consider such mapping as linked as incorrect and delete this extra ways
on encountering  them in my normal mapping.

Is there any reason to handle this situation in other way? Maybe there are some 
physical
barriers (for example concrete blocks) installed there?


3 Jul 2019, 22:03 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes 
> unless > "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, 
> concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."
>
> In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links based 
> solely on a painted surface?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496
>  
> 
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link 
> 
>
>

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