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

Since the throughness is implied by the lane markings and the LACK of directional markings in the greater context of state law and the existence of the MUTCD, it would not be inappropriate to mark these as through lanes. If marking the lanes as "none" implies to the computer "no direction control"

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

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

And I, too, have a preference for using "none" instead of leaving and endless line of "|" to try to parse. My eyesight isn't getting better as I get older. Having said that, if that had been the only thing they did, I wouldn't have bothered saying anything. But when their edits turned

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

I’m of half a mind to use a script to find the edits in my area where they changed something like “left|none|none|” to “left||” and then revert them manually. I know they are both officially acceptable variations but for those of us editing by hand counting the occurrences of “|none” to make

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

On 8/24/2016 6:19 PM, Jack Burke wrote: The problem is, it's breaking the values instead. I found a section of road that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an exit. My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right" was replaced by "slight_right". I

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

No, it's https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/193 And they appear to be telling me that the combination "none;slight_right" isn't valid. Also, in their reply to me, they do specifically mention that they know none is valid, yet they're replacing it anyway. And the worst part of it is that

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

The link Jack's talking about, https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180 Regards, Hans On Aug 24, 2016 4:09 PM, "Toby Murray" wrote: > Mind sharing the link to the GitHub issue? > > Do they think that "none" is an invalid option and are replacing it > with a blank

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

Mind sharing the link to the GitHub issue? Do they think that "none" is an invalid option and are replacing it with a blank globally? If so, this should be shut down immediately. "none" and blank are both valid values and while I wouldn't mind seeing it be consistent, any such edit would need to

[Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

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 maybe other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough). The problem is, it's