Re: [Talk-us] Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

Perhaps you could inquire via the contact information in http://www.katahdinmaine.com/images/pdf/KatahdinVG2015-WEB.pdf where they got the GIS data? There are maps of the new area on pp. 44-45, 50-51, 54-55, 76-77. Failing that: We could georeference the map of the area at

Re: [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

My interpretation: What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes >> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane >> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not >> signed with an arrow, such as this one? >>

[Talk-us] Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

So, if you haven't seen the announcement, yesterday President Obama established the latest National Monument. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/08/24/president-obama-designates-national-monument-maines-north-woods https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm It'd be nice to get at least the boundaries

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #318 08/16/2016-08/22/2016

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 318, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8022/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM is brought to you by ...

Re: [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On 2016.08.26. 00:15, Jack Burke wrote: Freeway exit tagging I am totally confused. What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not

[Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

Freeway exit tagging I am totally confused. What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not signed with an arrow, such as this one?

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Here's another example of how none breaks: http://mapillary.com/map/im/IUibLmC-b_nkLkYjziO7pA If you're only going by signs and pavement markings without context, this would be none|none|none|none leading up to the intersection, instead of left|through|through|merge_to_left On Thu, Aug 25, 2016

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Toby Murray wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > > So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is > > deficient for branching exits like this one: > >

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Paul, your examples are pretty much exactly what I've been doing, with the exception that for the last one I was using: turn:lanes=none|none|none;slight_right because of the aforementioned discussion of whether or not to use "through" without signage. --jack On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM,

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Fixing where the motorway_link branches out is also one of the things I'm working on fixing with this project. But as to why...so that a navigation app can provide proper lane guidance. I selected this particular example because it's very simple, without other details to clutter up the

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is > deficient for branching exits like this one: > http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw Why does this example even need any special lane

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is > deficient for branching exits like this one: > http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw > Yes, that's correct. Moving a couple frames

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Mease wrote: > > From the wiki: > > The *turn*=* key can be used to specify the *indicated* direction in > which a way or a lane will lead. It is used on the way segment from the > first indication via *road markings*, *signposts* or

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Thus my problem. The wiki doesn't consider what to do when there's a branching exit. It's a complete hole in the tagging schema, even though it's probably the most common type of freeway exit in the U.S. So, since there is no "through" indication, I resorted to "none;slight_right" even though

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is deficient for branching exits like this one: http://mapillary.com/map/im/ 7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw Your Osmand "invention" example is a perfect case-study of what I'm working on. I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

>From the wiki: The *turn*=* key can be used to specify the *indicated* direction in which a way or a lane will lead. It is used on the way segment from the first indication via *road markings*, *signposts* or similar indications to the junction or completion of merge. If you instead want to

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jack Burke wrote: > Even if the road isn't signed that way? The use of "through" when there > is no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the > wiki. > I'm considering the ground truth in this case to be how the

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Even if the road isn't signed that way? The use of "through" when there is no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the wiki. Don't get me wrong--I don't see why we _couldn't_ use it when that is the obvious traffic direction, even with the lack of explicit signage. But

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I > reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" that > is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

This was discussed extensively on the tagging mailing list 2 months ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html The consensus at the time was that combinations including ‘none’ are not

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

According to the wiki, "none" means that there are no indications on the lane. The value "none;slight_right" says that there are both no indications and a slight right indication on the lane, which is of course impossible. These "scripted" edits are therefore a correct interpretation of the

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

I have to disagree. If that's how to interpret the tags, then the tagging definition is deficient. Under that interpretation, how do you tag a lane that both continues and branches off as an exit, but doesn't have signage that it continues? -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology