[talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Sat Mar 5 05:29:50 UTC 2022

Regarding classing paint as a barrier, you wouldn't map a bicycle lane as a
cycle way if it is only a painted line (
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=285967329802439) but if there is a
barrier (Kreb, Armco, parked cars, etc.) it would be mapped as a separate
cycleway (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=594425938270748).

Also no one (to my understanding) has a problem with bus lanes being
tagged on the road's way and not as a separate bus only road.

Ben.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 15:03, <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:

> I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of
> the cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly
> established for over a decade.
>
> To quote the wiki (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways
> ):
>
> A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic
> flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel),
> which prevents movements between said flows.
>
> The concept of what constitutes "physical separation" has been very firmly
> established. And simply paint on the road surface isn't it. There are
> plenty of tags available to record information about legal restrictions
> imposed by paint. Splitting the way is not one of them.
>
> Also, you somehow seem to be under the misconception that OSM (name
> notwithstanding) is a *map*. It's not. It's a database with geospatial
> information.
>
> When you are editing OSM, you are not drawing a map. You are recording
> geospatial information, abstracted by established tagging patterns. Some of
> the data consumers of that information, after picking, choosing, and
> interpreting while render a map derived from that information.
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cleary <osm at 97k.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 09:38
> To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical
> separation"
>
> Hello again Dian
>
> If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I
> would suggest you are physically separated.  It does not have to be a
> concrete barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a
> police officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not
> really constitute a physical separation of ways.
>
> The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation".
> Undoubtedly an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes
> "physical separation".
>
> If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else,
> such as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum
> height,  then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding
> principles when considering any change to the guideline.
>
> In regard to the statement that  '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn
> as a separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded".  Every map
> involves decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we
> mapped every insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it
> would be useless. We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest.
> However in some instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The
> creators of maps are always exercising judgement in what is included or
> omitted. Not every physical item in the world, including every strip of
> paint, "demands" to be mapped.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> > Hi Cleary,
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s
> > legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being
> > unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I
> > can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the
> > car next to me.
> >
> > Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor
> > standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes
> > past a certain point.  The method you’re describing would demand each
> > lane to be drawn as a separate highway.
> >
> > Dian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or
> imaginary concept.  If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the
> law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a
> physical barrier that cannot be traversed.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, iansteer at iinet.net.au wrote: This
> >> query was triggered by the following comment in another thread,
> >>> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.
> >>>
> >>> “  ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of
> >>> the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.”
> >>>
> >>> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth
> >>> while abiding by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as
> >>> best I can without being able to resort to a sketch:
> >>>
> >>> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe &
> >>> Tonkin
> >>> Highways)
> >>> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with
> >>> the
> >>> 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south)
> >>> - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2
> >>> through
> >>> lanes)
> >>> - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the
> >>> traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite
> >>> close – hundreds of metres)
> >>> - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the
> >>> 2 continuing lanes – right to the next intersection
> >>> - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn
> >>> right at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally
> >>> cross the solid white line
> >>>
> >>> This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a
> >>> 2 lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point.
> >>>
> >>> Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the
> >>> next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be
> >>> mapped so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the
> >>> next intersection?
> >>>
> >>> Ian
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Talk-au mailing list
> >>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220305/6aa44dd5/attachment-0001.htm>