<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>At the other way, as we do it in Holland every roundabout should be tags in a forward and backward way in relations when the roundabout is split up. One of the reasons relation get polluted. <div><br></div><div>But your drawing argument is a illegal one. We do not map for the renderers. And all relations are two sided so always the whole roundabout is used. </div><div><br></div><div>When you draw a route from a to be the routing software has to be smart enough to colour only the part of the roundabout from way a to be into the right direction. <br><div><font size="2"><br>Met vriendelijke groeten <br>Robert Elsenaar</font> </div></div><br><br><br>Maarten Deen <mdeen@xs4all.nl> schreef:<br><br><br>On 2012-11-22 09:41, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:<br>> Am 22.11.2012 07:50, schrieb Maarten Deen:<br>>> On 2012-11-21 20:48, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:<br>>>> Am 21.11.2012 18:48, schrieb Maarten Deen:<br>>>>> On 11/21/2012 06:45 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:<br>>>>>> On 11/21/2012 06:41 PM, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:<br>>>>>> > Hi,<br>>>>>> > I'm mapping in NL near Aachen. Can someone tell me, why there <br>>>>>> is more<br>>>>>> > that ONE way in a dutch roundabaout?<br>>>>>> There isn't. A roundabout is always one way. If there are two<br>>>>>> directions<br>>>>>> it is not a roundabout but a circular road.<br>>>>>><br>>>>> Just after sending this I realized that I must have misread your<br>>>>> question. You mean why most roundabouts are made up of more than <br>>>>> one<br>>>>> way.<br>>>>><br>>>>> Initially it is because of the AND import. The AND dataset was <br>>>>> such that<br>>>>> between every junction of 3 or more roads there was a sperate way.<br>>>> What means the AND dataset?<br>>><br>>> AND donated their dataset in 2007 and was subsequently integraded <br>>> into OSM.<br>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AND_Data><br>> I do not find there any special about roundabouts. I think, that it<br>> is important to recognize a roundabout for navys to tell the user<br>> something like "leave the rounabout at the second street".<br>> Is there no discussion in Netherlands to join the automatically<br>> generated part of a roundabout manually?<br><br>No, because that is not necessary.<br>The AND data was structured such that at every point where there is a <br>juntion of three or more ways, a new way was created. You'll still see <br>that in lots of parts of the Netherlands:<br><http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.319581&lon=5.996067&zoom=18&layers=M><br><br>It is not necessary that the road "Lindanusstraat" is split up in 5 <br>parts, but that is how the AND dataset came. You'll notice the <br>AND_nosr_r tags on these ways, so you can see it came from AND that way. <br>The same with roundabouts. Because every connecting road is a point <br>where 3 ways connect, it was a different way.<br><br>Routing engines have no adverse effects from this. There is no <br>(sell-respecting) routing engine that will tell you to "continue for 100 <br>metres" a thousand times when the road is spilt up in smaller ways. So <br>why would it do that on a roundabout?<br>A roundabout is recognized by its tag: junction=roundabout. Not by its <br>physical properties (a circular one-way street).<br><br>>>>> Now it is just convenient if you have different relations (like a <br>>>>> bus<br>>>>> line) over the roundabout. Then you can indicate exactly which <br>>>>> side a<br>>>>> relation takes.<br>>>> Well, this is really not necessary because you drive the roundabout<br>>>> alwas in the same direction.<br>>>> In Germany we only have roundabouts made of ONE way. If you use the<br>>>> relation-editor of JOSM, than you can easily recgnize a roundabout.<br>>>> Would it not be easier, to use only ONE way in a roundabaout?<br>>><br>>> I think this looks much tidier than when roundabouts are always one <br>>> way.<br>>><br>>> <br>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.32506&lon=5.97571&zoom=17&layers=T><br>>><br>>> Also, if you make a route over a roundabout, you never use the full<br>>> roundabout, so why would you want the full roundabout in the <br>>> relation?<br>><br>> Of course this is true, but I think it looks tidier the other way,<br>> look here. You see at once, that there is a roundabout.<br>> <br>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.791022&lon=6.059449&zoom=18&layers=T<br><br>I don't see the difference there because it has only single ways <br>connecting to the roundabout.<br><br>But let me ask this simple question: if you go from A to B via a <br>roundabout, do you traverse the whole roundabout or only a part of it? <br>Why then add the full roundabout to a relation that describes the route <br>from A to B?<br><br>It is also clearer not to add the full roundabout. Take this example: <br><http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.333905&lon=5.995042&zoom=18&layers=T><br><br>It is immediately clear that bus 62 goes from east to west. If you had <br>the complete roundabout in the relation, the whole roundabout would be <br>red and you would not know which direction the relation had.<br><br>Regards,<br>Maarten<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Talk-nl mailing list<br>Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org<br>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl<br><br> </body>