[OSM-dev] Keepright layer conflicts

[Harald Kleiner]

Hi Dirk

As Philip already said, I refer to the tunnel-wiki-page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tunnel#How_to_Map). It says that you 
should have at least a short non-tunnel-way between a tunnel and the 
next junction.

 From this I conclude that the only valid method of changing layers is 
exactly two ways joining in a node end to end, like this:


   way A, layer 0              way B, layer 1
-----------------------*----------------------------



According to this rule, this is obviously wrong:
[two ways connected together at intermediate nodes while on different 
layers]

way A, layer 0	|
		|
		|           way B, layer 1
	--------*------------------------------------
		|
		|


this is IMHO also not OK (but nevertheless common practice):
[a bridge ending at a junction]

way A, layer 0	|
		|
		|           way B, layer 1
		*------------------------------------
		|
		|


There are many junctions of the third form, I admit. That's why I 
separated the second from the third form by different error types. So if 
you don't like to change the way you draw bridges/tunnels you can simply 
turn off the "not so obvious" layer conflicts errors.

Best regards,
Harald


 > Hi,
 >
 > Am I the only one with a problem how keepright handles layer conflicts?
 > In my view ways connecting at a single node are connected, even if they
 > run on different layers. That is the only way how to connect layers at
 > all, so the check should at most hint about a possible error when ways
 > of completely differend kinds (e.g. highway and waterway) join with
 > different layers and the shared node is a middle node for both ways.
 > especially if the node is an end (or starting) node for any of the
 > joining ways this should not be considered an error (for that way) in
 > any case. (where three ways meet and only one uses the node as an end
 > node this actually might be an accidental connection made by the editor
 > software).
 >
 > So please leave the check out as it now reports abundantly many false
 > positive and only few legitimate results.
 >