<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p></p>
<div>Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection? It might be if you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.<br>
<br>
Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to the OSM database. While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is overhead signage past that
slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection. So, [3] would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.<br>
<br>
This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it. So, I can see why Andrew was upset about this.<br>
<br>
-James<br>
<br>
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552<br>
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431<br>
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457</div>
<br>
<p></p>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Stewart C. Russell <scruss@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:<br>
> … the engine<br>
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn<br>
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need<br>
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.<br>
<br>
but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix<br>
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*<br>
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.<br>
<br>
I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't<br>
belong in OSM.<br>
<br>
Stewart<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>