On 23/12/2019 18:28, David Woolley wrote:
On 23/12/2019 18:15, Nick Allen wrote:
I may be missing something here, but
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099 looks okay to me.
The OP was proposing that
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099>,
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757674481>, and
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757543147 should be merged into a,
single, closed loop.
Are you sure? If so, that's a definite: No from me. The bus routes go
through the bus lay-by/pick up point, not here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757543147
As it stands,I believe this
way:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757674481/history can be merged
with the this way:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099
Slight aside: I disagree with contributor MacLondon's "role=forward to
cycle routes at roundabout" on the relation is required. Being one way,
it doesn't need relation roles - direction can be ascertained from the
way itself.
BTW the bus lay-by /can/ be joined & should be tagged as one way
.
Cheers
DaveF
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
