<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>According to the wiki, "none" means that there are no indications on the lane. The value "none;slight_right" says that there are both no indications and a slight right indication on the lane, which is of course impossible. These "scripted" edits are therefore a correct interpretation of the original tagging. The problem here is that the original tagging was incorrect.</div><div><br></div><div>On Aug 24, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Jack Burke <<a href="mailto:burkejf3@gmail.com">burkejf3@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>And I, too, have a preference for using "none" instead of leaving and endless line of "|||||||||" to try to parse. My eyesight isn't getting better as I get older.<br><br></div>Having said that, if that had been the only thing they did, I wouldn't have bothered saying anything. But when their edits turned continuing lanes into exit-only lanes...well, then it became a *problem*.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Tod Fitch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tod@fitchdesign.com" target="_blank">tod@fitchdesign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">I’m of half a mind to use a script to find the edits in my area where they changed something like “left|none|none|” to “left||” and then revert them manually.<div><br></div><div>I know they are both officially acceptable variations but for those of us editing by hand counting the occurrences of “|none” to make sure the lane count is correct and matches what is on the ground is harder than counting the “|” occurrences. At least it is for me and I’ve had decades of practice counting open and close parens to make sure compilers wouldn’t squawk at me because they weren’t balanced.</div><div><br></div><div>And while I haven’t seen a “none;slight_right”, it looks syntacticly correct and I can imagine cases where it might be used and would defer to the local mapper who used it. (The ones in my area are much more likely to be “through;slight_right”.)<div><div class="h5"><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Jack Burke <<a href="mailto:burkejf3@gmail.com" target="_blank">burkejf3@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div>No, it's <a href="https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/193" target="_blank">https://github.com/mapbox/<wbr>mapping/issues/193</a><br><br></div><div>And they appear to be telling me that the combination "none;slight_right" isn't valid.<br><br></div><div>Also, in their reply to me, they do specifically mention that they know none is valid, yet they're replacing it anyway. And the worst part of it is that while they're using a script to *find* what they think is invalid, they're *manually* making the changes.<br></div><div><br></div>--jack<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Hans De Kryger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hans.dekryger13@gmail.com" target="_blank">hans.dekryger13@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">The link Jack's talking about,</p><p dir="ltr"><a href="https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180" target="_blank">https://github.com/mapbox/mapp<wbr>ing/issues/180</a></p><p dir="ltr">Regards,<br>
Hans</p><div><div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 24, 2016 4:09 PM, "Toby Murray" <<a href="mailto:toby.murray@gmail.com" target="_blank">toby.murray@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Mind sharing the link to the GitHub issue?<br>
<br>
Do they think that "none" is an invalid option and are replacing it<br>
with a blank globally? If so, this should be shut down immediately.<br>
"none" and blank are both valid values and while I wouldn't mind<br>
seeing it be consistent, any such edit would need to be discussed<br>
before it is done.<br>
<br>
Toby<br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke <<a href="mailto:burkejf3@gmail.com" target="_blank">burkejf3@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I<br>
> reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" that<br>
> is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and maybe<br>
> other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).<br>
><br>
> The problem is, it's breaking the values instead. I found a section of road<br>
> that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an exit.<br>
> My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slig<wbr>ht_right" was replaced by<br>
> "||||slight_right".<br>
><br>
> While, per the wiki, there's nothing particularly wrong with a null value<br>
> for a field vs. specifying "none" as the value, it *does* make a difference<br>
> when there are two values in the field, as in my example above. They turned<br>
> a continue-on-or-exit lane into an exit-only lane.<br>
><br>
> So if you find broken lane guidance like that, with empty fields where<br>
> "none" would also be appropriate, that's probably what happened. Check the<br>
> history on the way and see if you can backtrack what happened (fortunately,<br>
> the group involved here included a url to a github issue where they are<br>
> tracking what they're doing).<br>
><br>
> Now I have 200 miles of Interstate to go back through and re-check.<br>
><br>
> --jack<br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Talk-us mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.or<wbr>g/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.or<wbr>g/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Talk-us mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Talk-us mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>