[talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this
comment:

"only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically
change lanes."

Physically, or legally?

Looking at the  Princes Hwy/William Rd
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history> example, yes, there's
only a painted line & island that you can physically cross, but that would
mean doing an illegal lane change.

Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart <suburbansilvervlogs at gmail.com>
wrote:

> (forgot to x-post to talk-au)
>
> Hi,
>
> The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
> there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
> be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
> rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
> off where the physical separation begins).
>
> Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
> routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
> rather to improve software.
>
> In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history> intersection, the
> residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, with
> the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.
>
> As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
> consensus would be most convincing.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220305/3b03ff37/attachment.htm>