[talk-au] What gives with roundabouts?

Darrin Smith beldin at beldin.org
Wed Dec 10 22:39:50 GMT 2008

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:22:11 +1100
Ian Sergeant <isergean at hih.com.au> wrote:

> Darrin Smith <beldin at beldin.org> wrote:
> I know of at least 5 roundabouts in Adelaide alone
> > that DO qualify for the global OSM definition of a mini-roundabout
> > so I don't see why we should be copping out and changing a
> > definition here just out of sheer lazyness.
> Its not laziness.  It is the best attempt to represent what is on the
> ground.  If the road isn't distorted to go around the roundabout on
> the ground, why should we map it that way?  If all there is on the
> ground is a concrete within the width of the road, a mini-roundabout
> offers the best way OSM has to represent that.

By what do we mean distorted? Curb Edgings? If so then the roundabouts
in question have their curbs adjusted in most cases. Normal vehicle
path? Again that applies to these roundabouts. Boundary of road? If
that's the case then nearly all major urban roundabouts also are
'mini's. I maintain it is just an excuse to justify general laziness,
and using a vague definition to justify it. 

> And (gets on soapbox) there is no global OSM definition for
> anything.  Map features only offers a set of recommendations voted on
> by 6 1/2 people if we are lucky, all of whom have probably never seen
> an Australian mini-roundabout.  How things are mapped is reflected by
> how mappers map them.

No, but I'm sure there's NO roundabouts in the rest of the world like a
mini-roundabout by the 'Australian' definition, rather a myopic view (In
reality I suspect they are in fact the most common type of all, since
they're cheap). If we follow this reasoning the nothing we put in OSM
need follow the front page if we don't feel like it and suddenly OSM
looks a bit useless because each person's local area means different



More information about the Talk-au mailing list