It probably couldn't hurt, since we've definitely found a shortcoming in the wiki definition.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should I bring up through;slight_right (and similar tags combinations) on > the tagging list? The last thing I want to do is go through 800+ miles of > Interstate only to have someone go behind me and "fix" everything by > removing "through" where it isn't signed. > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > >> Here's another example of how none breaks: http://mapillary.com/map/im/I >> UibLmC-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 at 12:53 PM, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 closer to >>>> http://mapillary.com/map/im/MsMAW3HKVNYxEVCtkRneBg, here's how I would >>>> tag three segments based on what's visible there and no other context: >>>> >>>> Ahead of camera after diverging ramp: >>>> >>>> highway=motorway >>>> oneway=yes >>>> lanes=3 >>>> ref=I 75 >>>> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes >>>> >>>> The ramp from the physical gore (next to the exit sign) to the tip of >>>> the theoretical (painted) gore (with the node for the intersection being >>>> even with the theoretical gore): >>>> >>>> highway=motorway_link >>>> oneway=yes >>>> placement=transition >>>> lanes=1 >>>> destination=Sycamore;Ocilla >>>> destination:ref=GA 32 (also, damn, had to check the minimap on that, I >>>> almost said MO 32 based on the shape). >>>> junction:ref=78 >>>> >>>> Behind the camera: >>>> >>>> highway=motorway >>>> oneway=yes >>>> lanes=3 >>>> ref=I 75 >>>> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes >>>> turn:lanes=through|through|through;slight_right >>>> >>>> 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 Florida tagged >>>>> with destination and lane guidance so that Osmand can show proper >>>>> guidance, >>>>> and hopefully other OSM-based navigation apps will add that feature, too. >>>>> As it stands, I use Osmand to test my tags. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I've been testing this, as well. I'm fortunate enough to live in a >>>> city that has nearly every kind of interchange to play with (except for >>>> some of the newer CFI styles, but OKC and...for like, no reason, rural >>>> interchanges with basically no traffic on I 40 leading into the Ouachitas >>>> are getting those) and well enough aware of the tagging in play to have >>>> seen what works and what doesn't, now. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
