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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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 -
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
>
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
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
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
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
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."
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
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
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
