Hi List, The wiki has guidance for the situation where a restriction applies throughout an entire jurisdiction:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction "When a particular turn restriction is _the default_ for a given jurisdiction _and_ is _not signed don't map them_. It is much better to ensure that routing engines embody the regional rule rather than mapping every occurrence as a turn restriction..." Do you think that the wiki applies to the situation under discussion in BC? Cheers Julian Loke On March 26, 2017 8:40:39 AM PDT, Andrew Lester <a-les...@shaw.ca> wrote: >Thanks for the input. The Motor Vehicle Act is written in legalese and >therefore hard to decipher, but I think you've raised enough points >that I'm going to look into it further. I had already removed some of >the right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in if I determine >that such turns are indeed illegal. I don't see people make these turns >very often. It's usually only if someone has stopped at the red light >waiting to go through or turn left, but then changes their mind and >turns right instead. I always had the understanding that it was legal >to do so, but I may have been led astray. I'll see if I can consult >someone familiar with BC's driving laws and I'll report back here so >other mappers will know too. > >There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground >mapping. This is something that always happens occasionally, and I can >live with the occasional instance, but the volume of mapping being >undertaken by Telenav means this is now happening too often to be >acceptable. Their mappers need to be given more guidance about what to >do and what not to do. > >Andrew > > >From: "Ian Bruseker" <ian.bruse...@gmail.com> >To: "a-lester" <a-les...@shaw.ca> >Cc: "James" <james2...@gmail.com>, "talk-ca" ><talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> >Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:05:53 PM >Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions > >Andrew, >I'm sorry to butt in here, I'm normally just a lurker and occasional >editor of my local bit of the world in OSM, but your comment on the >right hand turn restriction "at least in BC" really jumped out at me. >I've seen a number of times in my driving life someone do exactly what >you are describing, turning right at the actual intersection of two >roads, rather than the turning lane that came a little earlier, and >every time they have had BC plates. I live in Alberta, so I just >shrugged it off as "they're tourists, they just realized they missed >their turn, whatever". :-) But based on your comment, maybe this is a >"BC thing" and you all do it. ;-) > >It's always seemed weird to me to see it (but like I said, "tourists, >whatever"), and seems like a really unsafe and really should be illegal >practice. Imagine this scenario: driver A is traveling down Wilfert, as >from your map, and appears to be headed straight through the >intersection. Driver B behind them takes the right-turn linking lane to >get to Island Highway. Driver A suddenly decides they need to go right, >so they turn at the intersection proper. Driver B, having seen the >light was green for those going straight on Wilfert, presumes (always a >bad idea, but hear me out) that no car could possibly be coming across >their path and drives through the right lane and takes the corner. Then >BOOM, driver A's car is there out of nowhere because he took the later >option to turn right. Surely that must be illegal because it is so >unsafe. Not to mention driver C behind both of them also expects driver >A to go straight because driver A has already passed the turning lane, >so doesn't expect drive A to suddenly decelerate for the turn (this is >how I have come to be close enough to a car to see its BC plates, as I >slam on the brakes to avoid hitting them). > >So I did a quick google. I am not, really really not, a lawyer, but my >amateur reading of 151(e), as found here: >http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section151 >, "when approaching an intersection intending to turn right must drive >the vehicle in the lane nearest to the right hand side of the roadway", >my take on the wording "must" drive, and lane "nearest" to the right, >tells me that the linking lane is the only one that it is legal to make >a right turn from. Also, section 165(4) ( >http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section165 >) says "If at an intersection there is a traffic control device >indicating the course to be travelled by vehicles turning at the >intersection, a driver must turn a vehicle at the intersection in the >manner directed by the traffic control device.", and in the definitions >section, it defines a traffic control device as "a sign, signal, line, >meter, marking, space, barrier or device". Based on the satellite >imagery of that intersection (never actually been there myself), it >sure looks like there are "lines" and "spaces" and possibly even a >concrete island "barrier" (imagery isn't that detailed, but sure looks >like it) on the road that make it clear in where there is a place to >turn right. Also again with the word "must" rather than something less >imperative like "may" or "could". So based on my reading, it's not that >the turn is legal unless otherwise indicated, as you say, but rather >that it is illegal unless otherwise indicated to turn at exactly the >spot marked, because you "must" follow the traffic control device >indications, which is more than just signs, and those devices are >indicating that you "must" take the linking lane. > >I totally accept that I'm being a major buttinsky here and probably >coming off like a huge know-it-all, and I am SO sorry about that, but, >given that whatever decision is made about whether this is right or not >will live on in the map, I totally agree with what I think the spirit >of what you're saying, which is "it needs to be correct". I just think >that the "correct" thing is that you can't actually legally turn at >that spot, just as that turn restriction edit indicates. If you got >that far, go straight and find another way to your destination, or turn >right and expect a ticket or an accident to happen. Any lawyers or >police officers on this list? Their opinions are worth WAY more than >mine. :-) Again, I am really really sorry to butt in. I just like >"correctness" in the map, as you clearly do. I totally agree with the >other half of your email, that having on-the-ground work killed by bad >imagery traces is terrible. That's why I only edit places where I have >actually put my own two feet on the ground. :-) > >Ian > > >On 25 March 2017 at 21:52, Andrew Lester < a-les...@shaw.ca > wrote: > > > >I just discovered that user georges_telenav has been mapping turn >restrictions in the Victoria, BC area. While some of them seem valid, >there are hundreds of right-turn restrictions that can't possibly be >based on either Mapillary or OpenStreetView as stated below, because >these restrictions simply don't exist in reality. Here's an example: >http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7014602 > >I don't know about the rest of Canada, but at least in BC, this type of >turn is perfectly legal unless otherwise indicated. Most drivers would >use the link road and I'd expect routers should always prefer that, but >there's nothing wrong if a driver gets past the link road and then >changes their mind and wants to turn right. I can think of a handful of >locations around town where there may be a sign explicitly forbidding >this or at least implying it (e.g. "only left turn"), but the vast >majority of the instances that this user has mapped do not have such >signage. I'm in the process of cleaning all these up, but I'm worried >there may be thousands more of these all over the place outside my >immediate region. > >However, what I discovered while cleaning these up is even more >disturbing. This is a region with significant growth, and there are >frequent changes and additions to the road network. So far, I've >discovered several cases where a reconfigured intersection or new road >I had carefully mapped by GPS has been obliterated and replaced with an >old configuration, apparently based on out-of-date aerial imagery. I >take pride in mapping these changes as soon as possible after they're >completed so end-users have the most reliable data (and I often mention >this to people as one of the benefits of using OSM data in >applications), so it's disappointing to see a distant armchair mapper >destroy this careful on-the-ground work based on faulty assumptions and >out-of-date imagery. I've also seen Telenav mappers adding residential >roads that are clearly driveways and making edits without properly >aligning aerial imagery, so I'm not exactly filled with confidence that >they should be making widespread changes like they are. > >Martijn, I think Telenav needs to stop what they're doing and have a >careful discussion with us about their plans and editing procedures >before making any more edits. At least in my area, their edits have not >only failed to improve the dataset, but in a number of cases has >actually degraded it. Something needs to be done about this before >things go too far. I already have a lot of cleanup work ahead of me, >and I'd like to avoid this happening again in the future (at least by >Telenav). > >Andrew >Victoria, BC, Canada > > >From: "James" < james2...@gmail.com > >To: "John Marshall" < rps...@gmail.com > >Cc: "talk-ca" < talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > >Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:44:53 AM >Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions > > > >Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india >contractors > >On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall" < rps...@gmail.com > wrote: > >BQ_BEGIN > >Make sense to me. A dding turn restrictions is something I don't want >to add. >Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to >help improve the map. > >John > >On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel < jfd...@hotmail.com > >wrote: > >BQ_BEGIN > > > >Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki. > >Daniel > > > >From: Martijn van Exel [mailto: m...@rtijn.org ] >Sent: Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53 >To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >Subject: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map >team are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, >Montréal, and later on also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using >OpenStreetView and Mapillary as sources. If you have any questions or >concerns, please reach out to me and we will address it right away. > > > > > >For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use >the schema described in >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions . We >encounter a more complex mapping of conditional turn restrictions >sometimes, where mappers have used day_on / day_off and hour_on / >hour_off. This is uncommon and as far as I know not recommended for >mapping time-restricted turn restrictions. If we encounter these, our >proposal would be to remove these tags and if necessary replace them >with the preferred scheme as described on the wiki. Opinions? > > > > > >Best, > > >Martijn > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-ca mailing list >Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-ca mailing list >Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > >BQ_END > > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-ca mailing list >Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-ca mailing list >Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > >BQ_END _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
