+1 I completely agree with all of Darrin's points.
I was unaware of the decision on the mailing list when I started mapping a about 1.5 years ago. I read the descriptions on the wiki and went with a proper roundabout for suburban roundabouts, since they don't fit the definition of the mini-roundabout. I don't even recall seeing one in Melbourne, you always have to deviate around even small ones. As a Potlatch user, it sucks a bit to add them, but Merkaartor & I think JOSM have a tool to make it easy. I'm a big fan of "mapping what's on the ground" and "don't tag for the renderers/routers". But I like the idea of global consistency, it makes it easier on all users of the raw data. That's what I hope Map Features will provide (consistency), but the voting has it's issues as well. There's talk on the Talk mailing list of having a Core Features page. So for eg. I'd be in favour of using the wiki definitions of place=* tags. I plan on submitting a proposal for the roundabout tag, where you can add it to a node like a mini_roundabout, for use in simple suburban type roundabouts. Something like junction:inner_width=3mcould specify the island size, making it possible for pretty rendering. Weird intersecting ways or large roundabouts would have to continue as is. Anyone have any suggestions before I create the proposal? PS. Was it me adding turning_circle to courts? The wiki page description seems to match my use of it (I waited many months for it to be proposed/accepted/added to renderers). Cheers, BlueMM --- On Thu, 11/12/08, Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts? > To: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Received: Thursday, 11 December, 2008, 3:10 PM > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:55:13 +1100 > Ian Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've looked back through the logs, found the one discussion, noted > > > that it was basically a 4-3 split of contributors and since every > > > discussion on it has been "we discussed it and decided this". > > > Hardly a consensus in my mind. > > > > Since you made the effort to go back through the logs, and re-read the > > discussion that took place then, I'm surprised you would reach the > > conclusion that peoples position was solely related to effort. > > I suspect that's because you were in the discussion and supported the > views of the first poster, hence you didn't look at how he expressed > it. (see below) > > > I disagree that there hasn't been consensus on its use. There always > > have been differences of opioion, but as you say, most people have > > been happy to accept that it is the way it is. That is consensus. > > Ok I'll pay that in the technical definition of the word you are > correct. However given that all new people approach a project > like this with some trepidation (For example it's taken me 10 months > and someone altering work I've done to make me raise this issue which > I've thought was wrong almost as soon as I found out about it) > it's not surprising the 'consensus' has been maintained. > > OSM is littered with cases of things done badly to start with (which is > not a problem in one sense because something needs to be started > somewhere) and then carried on forever after (this is where it's a > problem) in what appears to be consensus because no-ones been motivated > to change it (The hideous is_in tag comes to mind). > > > I feel the approach you are taking is wrong. There are reasonable > > arguments to use a mini-roundabout tag in Australia where it is > > currently being used. If you want to convince people to not use it, > > and to map using junction, take the time to understand and address > > those arguments, and convince people that the best way is the way you > > are suggesting. Don't dismiss its proponents as lazy, or worse still > > as disruptive. Many of its these people have been valuable > > contributors to getting the map done. > > Ok, I could have approached it a better way I'll admit that. But this > issue boils down to the fact there are no actual reasons given for why > mini_roundabout should be used! The discussion just seems to assume that > every roundabout is a mini until it has reason to be bigger, it's not > even discussed whether this is valid. > > The discussion resolves around what benefits the roundabout tag offers > OVER the mini_roundabout tag, ignoring the fact they actually imply 2 > quite different things in the first place. > > Historically the roundabout tag predates the mini-roundabout tag by at > least 10 months in the wiki pages. So in effect the original > mini_roundabout tag was devise to handle a very special case of > roundabout that doesn't fit well with the normal definition in size, > shape, signage and the fact you can drive straight over it in > extenuating circumstances (I can't help but wonder if mini is > referring more to it's HEIGHT that it's radius). > > But here in Australia we apparently want to turn that very specific case > tag into the general tag and make the general tag for specific cases > without actually providing any valid reason (since we are apparently not > lazy). > > The general roundabout tag is still more accurate on the ground - You > CAN'T drive straight through the center of the the average small > suburban roundabout, you often can't even walk over it for the > various things stuck on it. There is and island there, so why shouldn't > there be an island on the map? > > So we in Australia have effectively reversed the precedence order of > these roundabouts. > > -- > > =b Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au