Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
Regarding classing paint as a barrier, you wouldn't map a bicycle lane as a cycle way if it is only a painted line ( https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=285967329802439) but if there is a barrier (Kreb, Armco, parked cars, etc.) it would be mapped as a separate cycleway (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=594425938270748). Also no one (to my understanding) has a problem with bus lanes being tagged on the road's way and not as a separate bus only road. Ben. On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 15:03, wrote: > I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of > the cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly > established for over a decade. > > To quote the wiki ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways > ): > > A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic > flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), > which prevents movements between said flows. > > The concept of what constitutes "physical separation" has been very firmly > established. And simply paint on the road surface isn't it. There are > plenty of tags available to record information about legal restrictions > imposed by paint. Splitting the way is not one of them. > > Also, you somehow seem to be under the misconception that OSM (name > notwithstanding) is a *map*. It's not. It's a database with geospatial > information. > > When you are editing OSM, you are not drawing a map. You are recording > geospatial information, abstracted by established tagging patterns. Some of > the data consumers of that information, after picking, choosing, and > interpreting while render a map derived from that information. > > Cheers, > Thorsten > > -Original Message----- > From: cleary > Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 09:38 > To: OpenStreetMap > Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical > separation" > > Hello again Dian > > If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I > would suggest you are physically separated. It does not have to be a > concrete barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a > police officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not > really constitute a physical separation of ways. > > The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation". > Undoubtedly an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes > "physical separation". > > If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else, > such as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum > height, then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding > principles when considering any change to the guideline. > > In regard to the statement that '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn > as a separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded". Every map > involves decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we > mapped every insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it > would be useless. We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest. > However in some instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The > creators of maps are always exercising judgement in what is included or > omitted. Not every physical item in the world, including every strip of > paint, "demands" to be mapped. > > > > > > On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote: > > Hi Cleary, > > > > Two points: > > > > Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s > > legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being > > unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I > > can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the > > car next to me. > > > > Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor > > standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes > > past a certain point. The method you’re describing would demand each > > lane to be drawn as a separate highway. > > > > Dian > > > > > > > > On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote: > > > >> > >> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or > imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the > law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a > physical barrier that cannot be traversed. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This > &g
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
Thanks for the tip about the "change" tag. So here is what I've done - does it sound right? - in the section where the slip lane joins the 2-lane through road (where lanes=3), I have added: "change:lanes=not_right|not_left| " (this hopefully means that the left hand lane cannot change lanes to the right, and the middle lane cannot change lanes to the left) - then in the next section where turn left and right slip lanes are added (where lanes=5), I have added" "change:lanes= |not_right|not_left|| " (which hopefully means: the left slip lane can do as it pleases, the 2nd lane (the left-most of the 3 through lanes) cannot change right, the middle of the 3 through lanes cannot change left, and the other 2 right-most lanes can do as they please) I'd be very interested to see what a routing engine does at the point where the slip lane joins the 2 through lanes. That is, does it associate the slip lane with the left-most of the through lanes and hence know a vehicle can't jump from the slip lane to the centre lane at the instant - or do the lanes go into a "melting pot" with no association? Similarly where lanes=3 changes to lanes=5 where the turn left and right slip lanes are added. Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of the cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly established for over a decade. To quote the wiki ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways ): A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows. The concept of what constitutes "physical separation" has been very firmly established. And simply paint on the road surface isn't it. There are plenty of tags available to record information about legal restrictions imposed by paint. Splitting the way is not one of them. Also, you somehow seem to be under the misconception that OSM (name notwithstanding) is a *map*. It's not. It's a database with geospatial information. When you are editing OSM, you are not drawing a map. You are recording geospatial information, abstracted by established tagging patterns. Some of the data consumers of that information, after picking, choosing, and interpreting while render a map derived from that information. Cheers, Thorsten -Original Message- From: cleary Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 09:38 To: OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation" Hello again Dian If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I would suggest you are physically separated. It does not have to be a concrete barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a police officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not really constitute a physical separation of ways. The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation". Undoubtedly an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes "physical separation". If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else, such as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum height, then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding principles when considering any change to the guideline. In regard to the statement that '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn as a separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded". Every map involves decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we mapped every insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it would be useless. We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest. However in some instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The creators of maps are always exercising judgement in what is included or omitted. Not every physical item in the world, including every strip of paint, "demands" to be mapped. On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hi Cleary, > > Two points: > > Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s > legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being > unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I > can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the > car next to me. > > Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor > standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes > past a certain point. The method you’re describing would demand each > lane to be drawn as a separate highway. > > Dian > > > > On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote: > >> >> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or >> imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law >> then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a >> physical barrier that cannot be traversed. >> >> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This >> query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, >>> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. >>> >>> “ ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of >>> the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.” >>> >>> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth >>> while abiding by the above. I will try to describe the situation as >>> best I can without being able to resort to a sketch: >>> >>> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & >>> Tonkin >>> Highways) >>> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with >>> the >>> 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) >>> - from the merge point there are 3 lane
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
To add to the ambiguity of what physically separate means I'll highlight the roudabout joining Wonga Road and Oban Road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-37.79463/145.24154 Here the separation between lanes is similar to a long thin speed hump - you can drive over it, but it is a physical bump to discourage people from cutting corners: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794785108333=145.24219080806=17=303763387865756=photo To make it even more confusing these raised humps don't extend the full distance of the approach, and they could be mapped as a mix of two separate ways, and a two lane way just before the roundabout - but this would be getting too pedantic and I can see no benefit of doing so. Personally, I'm less concerned about how these ambiguous cases are mapped - whatever we decide you will always be able to find an middle case that could be mapped either way. What is more important is getting the obviously wrong (see other thread) turning lanes fixed. I suspect a lot of the problem here is that id and the standard OSM render don't visually show lane tags. It is easy to visually map separate lanes as separate ways which then looks "good" - even though this is wrong by OSM standards. Regards, Kim On 5/3/22 10:46, Luke Stewart wrote: There are many situations in Australia where you are permitted to cross an unbroken white line (for instance, moving to a special purpose lane). The wiki is pretty unambiguous, "where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows". Emergency vehicles are an obvious class where crossing legal barriers such as lines on the road is perfectly fine. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
There are many situations in Australia where you are permitted to cross an unbroken white line (for instance, moving to a special purpose lane). The wiki is pretty unambiguous, "where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows". Emergency vehicles are an obvious class where crossing legal barriers such as lines on the road is perfectly fine. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
Hello again Dian If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I would suggest you are physically separated. It does not have to be a concrete barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a police officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not really constitute a physical separation of ways. The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation". Undoubtedly an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes "physical separation". If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else, such as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum height, then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding principles when considering any change to the guideline. In regard to the statement that '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn as a separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded". Every map involves decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we mapped every insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it would be useless. We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest. However in some instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The creators of maps are always exercising judgement in what is included or omitted. Not every physical item in the world, including every strip of paint, "demands" to be mapped. On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hi Cleary, > > Two points: > > Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s > legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being > unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I > can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the > car next to me. > > Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor > standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes > past a certain point. The method you’re describing would demand each > lane to be drawn as a separate highway. > > Dian > > > > On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote: > >> >> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or >> imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law >> then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a >> physical barrier that cannot be traversed. >> >> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This query was >> triggered by the following comment in another thread, >>> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. >>> >>> “ ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the >>> core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.” >>> >>> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while >>> abiding by the above. I will try to describe the situation as best I >>> can without being able to resort to a sketch: >>> >>> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin >>> Highways) >>> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the >>> 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) >>> - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through >>> lanes) >>> - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the >>> traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close >>> – hundreds of metres) >>> - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 >>> continuing lanes – right to the next intersection >>> - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right >>> at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the >>> solid white line >>> >>> This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 >>> lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point. >>> >>> Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the >>> next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped >>> so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next >>> intersection? >>> >>> Ian >>> ___ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 06:48, cleary wrote: > > Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or > imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the > law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a > physical barrier that cannot be traversed. > Agree entirely, except for saying that it's a physical barrier that *shouldn't* be traversed! On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 07:50, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s > legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. > Sure, that can happen, but if the road is blocked, & Police tell you to, you can also drive the wrong way down a one-way street / lane, but we still map that street as one-way against you! Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
Hi Cleary, Two points: Paint isn't a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it's legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being unable to change lanes doesn't make a single road into two roads. If I can't merge left then I'm not travelling on a different road than the car next to me. Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can't change lanes past a certain point. The method you're describing would demand each lane to be drawn as a separate highway. Dian On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote: Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a physical barrier that cannot be traversed. On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I'll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. " 'Don't split ways if there is no physical separation' is one of the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM." My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while abiding by the above. I will try to describe the situation as best I can without being able to resort to a sketch: - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin Highways) - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through lanes) - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close - hundreds of metres) - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 continuing lanes - right to the next intersection - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the solid white line This has currently been mapped "as normal", ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point. Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next intersection? Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or imaginary concept. If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a physical barrier that cannot be traversed. On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: > This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, > but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. > > “ ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the > core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.” > > My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while > abiding by the above. I will try to describe the situation as best I > can without being able to resort to a sketch: > > - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin > Highways) > - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the > 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) > - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through > lanes) > - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the > traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close > – hundreds of metres) > - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 > continuing lanes – right to the next intersection > - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right > at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the > solid white line > > This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 > lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point. > > Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the > next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped > so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next > intersection? > > Ian > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
change:lanes=* can represent that solid line. While that would implicitly define the inability to turn right, it can in addition be made explicit using a turn restriction relation with ways as via, specifically: type=restriction restriction=no_turn_right from: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/670700854 via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/382839842 via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/670682584 via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/574613452 via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/670674733 via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/574613451 to: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/770019512 From: nwastra Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 22:12 To: ianst...@iinet.net.au Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation" Here is the osm location https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-31.9881/115.9857 On 4 Mar 2022, at 9:59 pm, ianst...@iinet.net.au <mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> wrote: This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. “ ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.” My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while abiding by the above. I will try to describe the situation as best I can without being able to resort to a sketch: - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin Highways) - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through lanes) - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close – hundreds of metres) - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 continuing lanes – right to the next intersection - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the solid white line This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point. Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next intersection? Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
Here is the osm location https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-31.9881/115.9857 > On 4 Mar 2022, at 9:59 pm, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > > This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I’ll > start a new thread so as not to distract the original. > > “ ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the core > tenets of highway mapping in OSM.” > > My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while abiding > by the above. I will try to describe the situation as best I can without > being able to resort to a sketch: > > - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin > Highways) > - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 2 > lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) > - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through lanes) > - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the traffic > lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close – hundreds of > metres) > - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 > continuing lanes – right to the next intersection > - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right at the > next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the solid white > line > > This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 lane > road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point. > > Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the next > intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped so people > coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next intersection? > > Ian > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"
This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I'll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. " 'Don't split ways if there is no physical separation' is one of the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM." My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while abiding by the above. I will try to describe the situation as best I can without being able to resort to a sketch: - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin Highways) - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south) - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through lanes) - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close - hundreds of metres) - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 continuing lanes - right to the next intersection - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the solid white line This has currently been mapped "as normal", ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point. Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next intersection? Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
