[OSM-newbies] Separating streets that don't join

[Randy]

Isaac Wingfield wrote:

>Three questions about one thing:
>
>In my neighborhood, I came across an "intersection" where the two
>streets don't actually join, though the map said they did. I separated
>them and added a "bollard" tag, because that's what is there; cyclists
>or pedestrians can go through just fine.
>
>Problem is, at anything less than the highest zoom, the two still
>appear to join. See here:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.249885&lon=-121.910917&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF
>
>How do I fix it so the streets stay separate at zoom levels a driver
>would likely use?
>
>Second, the bollard shows up in the middle of the wrong street; it
>should be "between" Coralee and Little Branham. How do I arrange that?
>
>And third, is it appropriate to add a nearly zero-length "cycle path"
>to show that bikes and pedestrians can go through, or is there a
>better way?
>
>Isaac

First, yes, I would add a short section of highway connecting Little 
Brenham Lane to Coralee Drive, as you have, but place the bollard at the 
other end of that short section, so that it is clear that the restriction 
applies to Coralee Drive, and not, as you currently have it, preventing 
traffic flow along Brenham Lane. If there actually is no defineable cycle 
path, such that just removing the bollard would allow autos proceeding 
onto or off of Little Brenham Lane with physical difference in from any 
other local intersection, then I would not differentiate the way markings 
with a cycle path, just use residential. If there is, in fact, a very 
short section of the way which is distinguishable from the street, then 
yes, add an appropriate length section of bike path. There is really no 
need to do that unless the difference is actually there, though. Because 
of trees and shadows, I can't tell from the Yahoo imagery which is the 
case. The bollard rendering (dot in the street) should visually indicate 
that there is no passage to a motorist viewing the map, and the fact that 
it is on the node on Coralee Drive will (or at least should) prevent 
routers from routing automobiles through that intersection.

The fact that the streets look like they are connected at some 
magnifications (or even all magnifications if the pavement actually does 
connect) really shouldn't be considered an issue, in my opinion. The 
little dot tells the story.

As always others may have different opinions.

What is particularly interesting to me is that while Mapnik renders the 
bollard correctly, Osmarenderer appears to place the bollard at entirely 
the wrong intersection. At Rafton Drive and Coralee Drive rather than at 
Little Brenham Lane. If it is as it appears to me, that should be worth a 
bug report. Placing the bollard in the middle of the intersection may have 
confused Osmarenderer, but it shouldn't have.

By the way JOSM, at least, will be much happier if you change all those 
street abbreviations (Ln, Dr, etc.) to full words. And delete the 
tiger:review=no entry on those ways that you have either verified or 
corrected, to indicate that you have reviewed the TIGER data. That will 
help prevent your corrections  from being replaced with new TIGER data 
when newer TIGER data is imported. You wouldn't want to have all that hard 
work disappear.

-- 
Randy