I am not familiar with particular intersections and my mapping of urban intersections is limited. However I just looked at satellite imagery for three of the identified intersections and the current mapping seems to be an accurate reflection of what is on the ground. While guidelines can be very influential, they rarely accommodate all the variations of objects in the real world. If the maps are accurate and do not mislead anyone, I would support them staying as they are. However, if they are inaccurate or misleading then they should be made accurate. Conformity with the guidelines is, in my view, secondary to accuracy. In the longer term, the guidelines might need modification or clarification that there might be exceptions.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 4:30 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hello, > > > I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with > regarding the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I > have previously mentioned this topic on the mailing list here: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html,>. > > To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual > carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct. > > Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new > turn lane, then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a > Box shape that I've seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at > explaining: Burwood Hwy/Mountain Hwy > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8917929878>, Smith St/Dandenong Rd > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2951838115/history>, Burwood > Hwy/Dorset Rd <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8925914559/history>, > Princes Hwy/William Rd > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history>) Additional > highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no physical > separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113685299/history>, Greville St > N/Sturt St <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/976666655/history>, > Glenleith St/Church St > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/75040109/history>). This editor has > been an extremely active contributor for many, many years: I found > these examples by just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found > intersection that was modelled this way, and checked the history to > confirm the source. > > I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481 > <https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111051481>), and after some > initial delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation > <https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=206929&commented> > > since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and understanding > in our interactions, and have made adjustments to their mapping style > based on my feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a fundamental > point of disagreement > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118038711>, and I don't > believe further changeset discussions are going to be productive. > > I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I > would really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to > the extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in > similar areas isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my > assessment of intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or > of accuracy? > > Kind Regards, > Dian. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
