[talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

[Andrew Harvey]

Some of them like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13031072 where the
no-u-turn restriction is on the same way don't make sense, and it's fair to
ask for further information about why it was added, and if that's not
provided then I think it's fine to remove.

I admit that while I'd much prefer routers to fix their problems I've been
given so much bad routing due to u-turns at intersections that I've been
mapping some. I think microsoft mapped a lot, so it's common in the
database. I think at this point we might as well make an exception and
allow these traffic light no-u-turns to be mapped.

In the roundabout case, that's why I dislike splitting the way into two
oneway. It would be better to have a single way and just tag it as a
traffic island or hard/soft median on that section or something.
Nonetheless some mappers do it this way and in that case, the no-u-turn
restriction is probably required.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 09:46, Little Maps <mapslittle at gmail.com> wrote:

> If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully
> build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” vs
> “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it were,
> heaps of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor that
> the edits are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, they
> are clearly happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have different
> interests and pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and
> interesting, even if it is frustrating at times. It’s a big map.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210730/499bedba/attachment.htm>