[Tagging] [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Fri Aug 26 05:46:14 UTC 2016


It probably couldn't hurt, since we've definitely found a shortcoming in
the wiki definition.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Should I bring up through;slight_right (and similar tags combinations) on
> the tagging list?  The last thing I want to do is go through 800+ miles of
> Interstate only to have someone go behind me and "fix" everything by
> removing "through" where it isn't signed.
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
>> Here's another example of how none breaks:  http://mapillary.com/map/im/I
>> UibLmC-b_nkLkYjziO7pA
>>
>> If you're only going by signs and pavement markings without context, this
>> would be none|none|none|none leading up to the intersection, instead of
>> left|through|through|merge_to_left
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul, your examples are pretty much exactly what I've been doing, with
>>> the exception that for the last one I was using:
>>>
>>> turn:lanes=none|none|none;slight_right
>>>
>>> because of the aforementioned discussion of whether or not to use
>>> "through" without signage.
>>>
>>> --jack
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
>>>>> deficient for branching exits like this one:
>>>>> http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's correct.  Moving a couple frames closer to
>>>> http://mapillary.com/map/im/MsMAW3HKVNYxEVCtkRneBg, here's how I would
>>>> tag three segments based on what's visible there and no other context:
>>>>
>>>> Ahead of camera after diverging ramp:
>>>>
>>>> highway=motorway
>>>> oneway=yes
>>>> lanes=3
>>>> ref=I 75
>>>> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes
>>>>
>>>> The ramp from the physical gore (next to the exit sign) to the tip of
>>>> the theoretical (painted) gore (with the node for the intersection being
>>>> even with the theoretical gore):
>>>>
>>>> highway=motorway_link
>>>> oneway=yes
>>>> placement=transition
>>>> lanes=1
>>>> destination=Sycamore;Ocilla
>>>> destination:ref=GA 32  (also, damn, had to check the minimap on that, I
>>>> almost said MO 32 based on the shape).
>>>> junction:ref=78
>>>>
>>>> Behind the camera:
>>>>
>>>> highway=motorway
>>>> oneway=yes
>>>> lanes=3
>>>> ref=I 75
>>>> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes
>>>> turn:lanes=through|through|through;slight_right
>>>>
>>>> Your Osmand "invention" example is a perfect case-study of what I'm
>>>>> working on.  I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and Florida tagged
>>>>> with destination and lane guidance so that Osmand can show proper guidance,
>>>>> and hopefully other OSM-based navigation apps will add that feature, too.
>>>>> As it stands, I use Osmand to test my tags.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been testing this, as well.  I'm fortunate enough to live in a
>>>> city that has nearly every kind of interchange to play with (except for
>>>> some of the newer CFI styles, but OKC and...for like, no reason, rural
>>>> interchanges with basically no traffic on I 40 leading into the Ouachitas
>>>> are getting those) and well enough aware of the tagging in play to have
>>>> seen what works and what doesn't, now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160826/671c82a5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list