Cartinus schrieb:
On Sunday 30 November 2008 03:07:02 Ulf Lamping wrote:
I've just added a table to that wiki page that tries to map existing
road signs to the corresponding restriction values.
I don't know if this is the same everywhere in Europe, but sign 7b (the only
square sign in the
David Earl schrieb:
On Sunday 30 November 2008 03:07:02 Ulf Lamping wrote:
I've just added a table to that wiki page that tries to map existing
road signs to the corresponding restriction values.
In most situations where you see these signs they are used in
conjunction with a No Entry at
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want a situation where the two parts of the road are unambiguously
identified by the from and to members, meaning that if any of these do
not start/end at the junction they have to be split.
What do you think of using
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, I am strongly opposed to automated processing of the
restriction ...
My guess is that your opposition is based on the fact that some (future)
routing system may not have enough information to calculate
Hi,
Nic Roets wrote:
My guess is that your opposition is based on the fact that some (future)
routing system may not have enough information to calculate angles esp. when
non-junction nodes was removed during prepossessing.
I simply want a clear, non-interpreted rule that identifies the
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thinking of a T shaped junction where maybe someone adds a sharp right
turning service
Which can be hacked^H^H^H^H^H^H solved by relaxing the current requirement
for angles to be multiples of 90 degrees.
So we have 4
As well as You can't do this and You must do this we need You may
do this (that normally you can't). Where I live, you can't do a
U-turn at traffic lights unless there's a sign that says you can. If
we try and mark this by putting relations at every light banning
U-turns, we'll just end up with
I've been looking at the 100 or so turn restrictions[1] in use, and
most of them don't follow the spec set up on the wiki making the
description very confusing. Considering how complicated relations
feels I'm asking here instead of just changing the wiki:
I think you are right, Ed.
A grep of relations-latest.osm.bz2 shows 1930 occurrences of tag k=type
v=restriction /.
bzgrep 'tag k=restriction' relations-latest.osm.bz2 |sort |uniq -c |less
|sort -nr
815 tag k=restriction v=no_left_turn /
550 tag k=restriction v=no_right_turn /
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Ed Loach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik wrote:
I've been looking at the 100 or so turn restrictions[1] in use,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relations/search?type=typevalue=restriction
seems to omit at least the no_right_turn restriction I added in
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Erik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But using OSM XAPI I still get results that differ from Nics.
#curl -gl
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Nic Roets [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it will make things simpler for the user if 'via' could be left out,
but changing gosmore not to rely on the via node anymore may prove very
difficult. And rendering software may also need the via node.
Ok.. so do you
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Erik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok.. so do you use two via nodes to resolve the left/right turn issue
with out using lat/lon?
No. gosmore expects exactly one 'via' object and it must be a node. So
complicated (multistate) restrictions aren't
Perhaps someone who understands how this feature works should add a few
examples of ways that have been properly tagged as turn restrictions.
I recently added several turn restrictions in this vicinity, and I admit I
was quite confused by the documentation, but I did the best I could. After
this
Perhaps someone who understands how this feature works should add a few
examples of ways that have been properly tagged as turn restrictions.
I recently added several turn restrictions in this vicinity, and I admit I
was quite confused by the documentation, but I did the best I could. After
this
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Scott Atwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Perhaps someone who understands how this feature works should add a few
examples of ways that have been properly tagged as turn restrictions.
I recently added several turn restrictions in this vicinity, and I admit I
was
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Scott Atwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
This is actually quite a complicated intersection. Arroyo Way is a two-way
street that
Ok, I've read you're description and it looks like my assumptions about
southbound traffic on S 17th was correct. The next step would
Hi,
Nic Roets wrote:
At T junctions the ambiguity is resolved using
restriction=no_left_turn/no_right_turn.
For the record, I am strongly opposed to automated processing of the
restriction except to see if it is only... or no
I want a situation where the two parts of the road are
Erik Johansson schrieb:
I've been looking at the 100 or so turn restrictions[1] in use, and
most of them don't follow the spec set up on the wiki making the
description very confusing. Considering how complicated relations
feels I'm asking here instead of just changing the wiki:
On Sunday 30 November 2008 03:07:02 Ulf Lamping wrote:
I've just added a table to that wiki page that tries to map existing
road signs to the corresponding restriction values.
I don't know if this is the same everywhere in Europe, but sign 7b (the only
square sign in the table) does not mean
20 matches
Mail list logo
