[Tagging] (Mini)Roundabout: examples

Martin Vonwald imagic.osm at gmail.com
Wed May 16 11:03:02 BST 2012

First of all many thanks for your detailed and constructive feedback.

2012/5/15 Andrew Chadwick (lists) <a.t.chadwick+lists at gmail.com>:
>> Still open, so please provide feedback:
>> * Decision if traffic_calming=chicane or traffic_calming=island should
>> be used in two of the examples
> Chicanes look very different, and wouldn't be confused with roundabouts
> anyway. Best avoid mentioning them.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane#Traffic_calming

I already changed the example to traffic_calming=island and removed
any reference to chicane. So I guess traffic_calming=island is hereby
approved, as no one objects.

> Some other feedback:
> 0. Box description needs a really nice clear photograph!

Hopefully it's nice enough. Done.

> 1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traffic_circle currently
> redirects to the Tag:junction=roundabout. This is in conflict with your
> new text and the existing text because "traffic circles" apparently do
> not grant right of way to the circulating traffic:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle . It's US English
> terminology, not British English, but it's a good distinction to retain
> if you ask me.

I'll keep that in mind. I guess we need a new article about traffic
circles then.

> 2. Needs to explain what "traversable" means.

I would be very thankful for some suggestion here, as I'm not a native speaker.

> 3. Drop the "A roundabout is" from the box Description for brevity.


> 4. "be anywhere" => "have any size" :)

I copied that from the original article ;-)

> 5. The introductory blurb re the "Danger of confusion" sounds a bit
> alarmist. Perhaps it's just the section title. I would drop this para
> since whatever title we choose will be right there in the Contents box.

Moved it below the examples. I can't think of a better name though.

> 6. I'm happy to tweak the English text as needed once it's up; poke me
> when it's done. Or should I just dive in and reword?

I'll come back to you for sure! ;-)

> 7. "How to map" => needs a gentler introductory paragraph going over
> things at a high level before you get into the detail of how everything
> should be done. Suggest something like "Start by drawing a circular
> shape, and make its tags match the roads which connect with it." or
> maybe something more.
> 7a. The detailed instructions tagging might be more digestible in
> billet-point form.


> 8. "Editor support for circles" seems too prominent where it is, and
> nobody's really bothered about the neatening tools at first. I suggest
> demoting this to a later section, and maybe retitling it as "Drawing
> neater circles".

I'm not sure about that. I'm afraid that people will oversee it at the
end of the article. And there are already enough complains, that
drawing a circle is so difficult.

> 9. "Examples" section: these are not really examples; they're closer to
> explanations of how to continue road tagging through a roundabout. I
> like the visual explanations of how to to classify the roundabout w.r.t.
> the ways connecting to it.
> 9a. Ideally, the example section needs some good photographic examples
> with big thumbnails and clear explanations of what tags to use.

I didn't add any examples before, because they would all be tagged
identically. Now I added a nice selection of photos. Better?

> 10. "Danger of confusion". The title still sounds a bit alarmist! Not
> sure how to retitle it though. "Features which look like roundabouts,
> but aren't"?

I'm not a native speaker, but "Features which look like roundabouts,
but aren't"? Really? ;-)

> 10a. Perhaps it could be merged with the Examples section usefully.

Yes, it could and it was. I also think, it's better now.

> 11. It's important that the example photos of things which are _not_
> roundabouts should be made much more distinguishable from the photos of
> things which _are_ roundabouts. This is because people who do not speak
> German, English or Russian well will be looking at the photographs and
> not the words; if the distinction is unclear from the form of the page,
> we may be compounding the problem of mistagging.

Hm. There is a photo and the correct tagging right beside it. What
more is needed? Suggestions?

Thanks again!

More information about the Tagging mailing list