A left turn there would be legal, unless there is a local sign.
So I would not place a turn restriction on it base on satellite imagery.
On 12/01/19 07:47, Jem wrote:
Spot on. Although the routing engine data could impose a turn
restriction here based upon geometry as part of their data pipeline.
I wonder if it is legal to turn there and, if not, does that form part
of the ground truth IRT OSM, regardless of whether there is a sign
present.
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:53, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com
<mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If you miss the on-ramp and are waiting for the traffic signals, a
router can recalculate the route in the meantime and still try to let
you turn left at the traffic signals.
m.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 1:47 PM Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl
<mailto:md...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>
> I agree that Markus' solution is more elegant (and I was more
looking to
> the offramp itself). I would normally also map it like that but
I also
> don't go out of my way to correct situations like that.
> The way it is mapped now is more organic, more as you would actually
> drive. As such I don't see it as wrong.
>
> I would not add a turn restriction. For routers it is useless
because
> you never get that route anyway.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
> On 2019-01-11 13:23, Jem wrote:
> >> I'd map that place like that:
> >
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ID_Screen_Shot_from_-32.0914374,_116.0129206.png
> >
> > I agree. And a supplementary question... would you also add a
> > no-left-turn restriction from https://osm.org/way/581948344 at
> > https://osm.org/node/5680879176? I would, and have done in the
past.
> > But to be honest, I'm not sure if a turn like that (having already
> > passed the slip lane designated for the turn) is legal or not.
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 20:47, Markus
<selfishseaho...@gmail.com <mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:40, Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl
<mailto:md...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> See below two cases where we would simplify the geometry:
> >>>>
> >>>> * -32.0914374, 116.0129206
> >>>
> >>> Is seen no big problem in how the roads are layed out there.
> >> Coming from
> >>> the motorway there is a clear divider where the offramp connects
> >> to the
> >>> Albany Highway.
> >>
> >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596272469> and
> >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596272466> form a
> >> double-rectangle,
> >> but there isn't such a divider. I'd map that place like that:
> >>
> >>
> >
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ID_Screen_Shot_from_-32.0914374,_116.0129206.png
> >>
> >>> I have more problems with the tags of the on- and offramp. They
> >> are
> >>> mapped as motorway when they should be mapped as motorway_link.
> >> The two
> >>> bridges in the on- and offramp are mapped as motorway_link.
> >>
> >> +1. I'd also delete the descriptions like Tonkin Highway
Southbound
> >> Ramp off to Albany Highway in the name tag unless the ramps are
> >> signed
> >> like that on site.
> >>
> >>>> * -35.3409195, 149.1616891
> >>>
> >>> Ways 77001149 and 77000891 should IMHO not be mapped like
that but
> >>> mapped with turn:lanes.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Markus
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
