[talk-au] Audible fences
Info only barrier=fence sensory=audible ie the squeaking screeching fences that supposedly replace cattle grids. I asked for input some months ago on how to map. With the recent ID editor update there is now a warning that a fence has to be a line, even though it is placed on the road. Cheers ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
My apologies Thorsten and Frederik, I stand humbly corrected. Best wishes Ian > On 30 Jul 2021, at 6:27 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Hi, > >> On 30.07.21 01:43, Little Maps wrote: >> If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully >> build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” >> vs “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. > > It has, and it should. Anything added to OSM makes editing more > complicated for mappers to come - *especially* when it's relations that > always have the potential to trip up the newbie mapper. > > Something that is completely unnecessary reduces the ease of editing of > our map while adding no value to compensate for that. It makes it harder > for us to achieve what we want - a map editable by anyone. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > 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] Can anyone make sense of this?
Hi, On 30.07.21 01:43, Little Maps wrote: > If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully > build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” > vs “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. It has, and it should. Anything added to OSM makes editing more complicated for mappers to come - *especially* when it's relations that always have the potential to trip up the newbie mapper. Something that is completely unnecessary reduces the ease of editing of our map while adding no value to compensate for that. It makes it harder for us to achieve what we want - a map editable by anyone. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
Looking at the example - this is a really complex situation where the roundabout is at the entrance to a multi-level car park with a fly-ramp taking off to an upper parking level. Is the roundabout on public land or is it part of the precinct for the associated shopping mall? I would imagine the "no U-turn" restriction applies to accessing the fly-ramp dangerously. So commenting generally based on this one situation is a bit risky. Adrian Get BlueMail for Android On 30 Jul 2021, 12:33, at 12:33, Andrew Harvey wrote: >Some of them like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13031072 where >the >no-u-turn restriction is on the same way don't make sense, and it's >fair to >ask for further information about why it was added, and if that's not >provided then I think it's fine to remove. > >I admit that while I'd much prefer routers to fix their problems I've >been >given so much bad routing due to u-turns at intersections that I've >been >mapping some. I think microsoft mapped a lot, so it's common in the >database. I think at this point we might as well make an exception and >allow these traffic light no-u-turns to be mapped. > >In the roundabout case, that's why I dislike splitting the way into two >oneway. It would be better to have a single way and just tag it as a >traffic island or hard/soft median on that section or something. >Nonetheless some mappers do it this way and in that case, the no-u-turn >restriction is probably required. > >On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 09:46, Little Maps wrote: > >> If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully >> build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. >“Necessary” vs >> “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it >were, >> heaps of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor >that >> the edits are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, >they >> are clearly happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have >different >> interests and pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and >> interesting, even if it is frustrating at times. It’s a big map. >> ___ >> 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
