> From: marti...@telenav.com
> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 11:31:55 -0500
> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
> CC: ste...@telenav.com; krist...@telenav.com; robe...@telenav.com;
> chr...@telenav.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
>
> James,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. This is of course not good. I will make sure
> we will be more careful with both the lane counts and the relations
> not getting broken! I apologize. Did you fix the relations? If not I
> will.
>
I hadn't yet since I wanted to wait till you responded on the list first so you
could see what I was talking about (Changeset 18789658).
> The case you highlighted - I agree this one would be just fine as a
> single node.
That's how I'm going to repair that intersection & the relations that were
effected, by just reverting Changeset 18789658 to return it to the way it was
before yesterday.
> The guidance I have been giving, based on previous
> discussion in this thread, was to only 'dualize' the intersection when
> the dual carriageway clearly continues past the intersection. Does
> that make sense?
Yep, that does make perfect sense to me. That's how I've personally been doing
it.
>I will make sure we adhere to that guideline and not
> overcomplexify situations that don't require it from a ground trouth
> perspective.
>
> Martijn
Sounds good Martijn. Thanks again for responding back on this subject. :)
I'll now go ahead and do the revert of Changeset 18789658.
-James
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
